Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board Study Session 2019-11-12Tuesday, November 12, 2019 6:00 p.m. – 6:40 p.m. Rooms 202/203 5:45 p.m. - Dinner 6:00 p.m. Visit Estes Park Operating Plan and Visitor Survey Results. (CEO Eric Lund) 6:35 p.m. Trustee & Administrator Comments & Questions. 6:40 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Items. (Board Discussion) 6:45 p.m. Adjourn for Town Board Meeting. Informal discussion among Trustees concerning agenda items or other Town matters may occur before this meeting at approximately 5:30 p.m. AGENDA TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION 1 1       2 2 Executive Summary: Mission Vision This is an Operation Plan for use of public dollars for a statutory district, the Visit Estes Park Local Marketing District, DBA Visit Estes Park (VEP). It is a high-level view of goals, key objectives, potential strategies and metrics to measure successful outcomes. It provides general direction and accountability for the upcoming fiscal year through the Budget Variance section. This plan is required to be completed and approved according to statutory deadlines. We drive sustainable year-round economic growth by encouraging visitor demand. To offer positive and memorable experiences for guests and quality of life for our community. 3 3 Let’s explore these ideas Colorado’s Original Playground Sustainable Tourism Postive & Memorable Experiences This is the tagline that has been developed to better enforce that the best of Colorado exists in its purest form in Estes Park and that since our earliest days, the Estes area has been a premier and authentic source of leisure, recreation, and adventure. We want to be mindful of the longevity of the good living that we promote. This isn’t only about electric car charging stations and green initiatives, this is about quality of life for our families, friends, residents and our guests, in everything we do, we want to make sure that we’re headed toward year-round sustainability and profitability for our stakeholders. We seek to create a more educated guest, pursuing adventures that are best for them and with the least impact upon our local natural resources, all while striving to maintain the unique character of what it means to live in Estes Park. I’d argue that Visit Estes Park has done a great job of creating positive, memorable experiences over the years, and it’s imperative to continue to emphasize the family value of our destination to both visitors and residents alike. But we need to do a better job of directing that idea by enabling higher quality visitation by attracting quality visitors who respect and appreciate the destination. What this means on the ground level is crafting messages regarding summer marketing to be less about “get here” and more about “how to plan ahead and leave no trace behind”. How to find uncrowded, lesser-known activities. How to discover a new thing to do in the destination other than RMNP. How to plan a trip timed for smaller crowds or better deals, and so on. And in the context of winter, the message is more adventurous, but still with plenty of outdoor activities and local insights built in. 4 4 According to the CTO The Colorado Tourism Office suggests that aligning with a more adventure-seeking, outdoor-loving audience is where real long-term growth potential lies. We agree, the outdoor recreation industry is a powerful force in the overall U.S. economy, with consumers spending $887 billion annually on outdoor recreation and creating 7.6 million American jobs, and included in the top reasons folks visit Estes Park, they are outdoor related. Travelers set an all-time spending record of $22.3 billion on Colorado trips and vacations in 2018, a 6.7 percent increase from 2017, significantly above the national average spending increase of 4.1 percent. Colorado had the ninth-largest share of these travelers nationally in 2018, up from 18th largest in 2009. Less than a year after the CTO introduced the new Care for Colorado Principles in a first-of-its-kind partnership with the Leave No Trace Center for Outdoor Ethics, a resident sentiment study in April found 28 percent of residents already aware of the public awareness campaign. With new nonstop international flights launched in 2018, Colorado for the first time attracted more than a million international visitors. About 40 percent of those 1,049,000 international visitors came from the two border markets of Mexico and Canada, with the remaining 60 percent from overseas markets, including the UK, Australia, France, Germany, China and Japan. “COLORADO TOURISM SETS ALL-TIME VISITOR SPENDING RECORD IN 2018” “More and more travelers – especially Millennials and GenXer’s – are reporting that a destination’s sustainability practices are important in their choice of where to vacation,” she said. “Not only do we want to attract the kinds of travelers who care about our environment, now we have proof that Colorado is the best place for those travelers to find what they’re looking for.” - Cathy Ritter “Overall, it was a great year in 2018. As far as sustainable tourism goes, it sounds like Estes Park is right in line with the CTO’s initiatives of educating both locals and visitors on protecting our natural resources!” -CTO office 5 5 Goal #1 Goal #4 Create stronger leisure market visitor demand. Promote the Estes Park experience in national & international markets. All to: Continue the evolution of rebranding winter and creating a more educational approach to summer messaging How we’ll measure success: Lodging tax collections, Google Analytics, consumer research results, visitor center statistics, RMNP guest statistics Dedicated Marketing Team of Four People Create stronger leisure market visitor demand through our marketing programs Dedicate more resources to Video for our website and social media channels Creative Front Range out-of-home Unique use of social platforms and influencers Promote the Estes Park experience in national & international markets Digital, continue our trend into a digital-centric plan with a hyper- analytic approach to ROI to communicate the ultimate concern: did our marketing efforts bring people to Estes Park and at the desired time of year? Content partnerships: Target meaningful, national and international media outlets to create custom editorial to support key messaging Elevate our own brand approach: Be our own media house Work with CTO on current promotions to key international markets: Germany, UK, Australia, Canada, Mexico, Japan A B C D E F G H I J Marketing Program Overview A B C D E Group Sales & Marketing Program Goal #2 Create stronger group marketing program. Plan for new staff positions dedicated to Group Sales (Possibly subsidized by Estes Park Event Center through a new IGA) Improved RFP process (Simpleview/Cvent) with site inspection & marketing support and post event survey and engage with new CVENT RFP automation system New stakeholder Group Sales Committee Enhanced stakeholder cooperative marketing opportunities will generate some offset revenue New digital Lead services (CVENT) for increased RFP’s New marketing materials dedicated to promote group sales New tradeshow schedule for improving RFP’s and group sales F G H New advertising program dedicated to group marketing 6 6 How we’ll measure success: Generate advertising marketing revenues to enhance marketing capabilities to 2020 Budget, improve overall quality and appearance of advertisements on the website, and other media, provide unmatched quality of service to our stakeholders, offer successful avenues of advertising to stakeholders that helps to improve their business. A B C D E F Stakeholder Services Program Goal #3 Promote stakeholder and community engagement. Four Staff dedicated to Stakeholder Services Education and training of staff on cooperative advertising programs for stakeholders Improved configuration of sales program Restructuring of Feature listing Lottery program Continuation and improvement of the “Free Stakeholder Services” program Provide added perceived value for stakeholders by leveraging marketing resources with Visit Estes Park How we’ll measure success: Create a new Community Advisory Board for Engagement, improve community perception and support of visitor market sector and role of Estes Park in the marketplace, transparency and understanding of Visit Estes Park programs and their direct and indirect benefit upon our local residents, families and friends, greater community feedback and recommendations to support future strategic planning. A B C D E F G H I Community Engagement Program Goal #5 Explore opportunities to integrate visitor services. Executed by the Board and CEO Every community must compete with every other community for their share of the world’ attention, customers, and investment. To compete, people need to be aware of a community and meet its people. This is achieved through clearly developing, articulating and managing the community’s brand. Efforts must be made to promote, market, sell and engage potential visitors. And all of this must be reinforced again and again. Addressing this need for destination promotion in Estes Park is for the benefit and well-being of every person in our community. It is a common good. It is an essential investment to develop opportunities and build quality of life to benefit all the residents of our community. How we’ll measure success: Number of RFP’s generated, number of service requests generated, number of site tours supported, number of group planners met with, and if possible, measure tracking of groups booked, # of room nights generated and total sales influenced. 7 7 Budget Variance Overview Income Variances Distric Tax Fund Advertising Fees - Stakeholders Grants and Awards In addition to the high-level budget snapshot in the 2020 Op Plan presentation, we will also look at 2018 Actuals and 2019 Budget for benchmarks of how we compare for 2020. The full budget is included in the 2020 Operating Plan and the following is a look only at key variances from year to year compared with the proposed budget: When reviewing revenue growth as it relates to the 2% lodging tax, we looked at the last 5 years of growth as it relates to the lodging tax. The VEP Board made the recommendation to be conservative on future growth as we are coming off some very strong years with the Rocky Centennial and the Town Centennial in 2016 and 2017 respectively but we are still experiencing year to year growth. The actuals we have seen after 7 months of tax revenue in 2019 points to an increase over budget of just over 6%. With these trends in mind, we recommend being more conservative than using the average of 2018 actuals and the 2019 budget and projecting a 3% increase which is half of that. This is a conservative approach while still acknowledging the increase in lodging tax we have consistently seen over the past 5 years. This is the line item where we record revenue from our website listing sales to other stakeholder services. Traditionally Visit Estes Park has used a third-party company to manage these sales on a 50/50 revenue split. The increase of revenue in this category involves bringing all website ad and listing sales in house with our sales team. The revenue for 2019 is 50% of the 50% split with the firm as all contracts for the listings are from July 1-June 30. In 2020 this category will increase again as that will be the first fiscal year where all listing revenue will be 100% available. VEP will apply for a matching grant with the Colorado Tourism Office of $25,000 that the Board of Directors has approved. This will be for our Athlete in Residence Program and would help us to extend the program further and add another four to six influencer bloggers. There would be an offsetting $25,000 expense under special Advertising so this is a neutral impact to the budget. Additionally, income from the Visitors Guide is offsetting with expense and Larimer County PILT should remain about the same. Other Income will go up a bit because we are investing funds into higher yielding interest accounts. 18 Actual 18 Actual 18 Actual $2,288,485 $300,101 $111,331 $2,400,000 $488,000 $0 $2,472,000 $602,000 $25,000 19 Budget 19 Actual 19 Budget 20 Proposed 20 Proposed 20 Proposed 8 8 Expense Variances Advertising Group Sales & Marketing Research Website Advertising is all activity related not only to the marketing of Estes Park but the production of that content and the fees of our agency partners. In 2020 the plan is to not spend any reserves while providing an increased level of service and ROI for our stakeholders. Also, group sales advertising which was budgeted at $80,000 in 2019 has been moved to its own category which is now listed under Group Sales for $110,000 in 2020. This is a new line item which will provide a direct budget into the expenses associated with the new Group Marketing and Sales effort. These expenses are for advertising, marketing and attending shows. There was $80,000 allocated in the Advertising budget for Group Sales in 2019 and now it will be in its own category. In anticipation of possibly collaborating with the town of Estes Park, the cost would be shared at 50% and that is what we have budgeted. There is a chance that the town will not want to do a cooperative package and we would save the $50,000 although there may be some other research costs such as our comp market set that we are negotiating with RR Associates. The amount budgeted covers the cost of our maintenance contract with Simpleview and we are not launching a new site in 2020 as we did in 2019, so the costs will be lower. 18 Actual 18 Actual 18 Actual 18 Actual $1,530,343 Did not exist $41,483 $113,325 $1,300,000 $80,000 in Adv. $100,000 $100,00 $1,140,000 $110,000 $50,000 $65,000 19 Budget 19 Budget 19 Budget 19 Budget 20 Proposed 20 Proposed 20 Proposed 20 Proposed 9 9 International Promotion Office Supplies, Postage, and Printing Personnel International promotion is covered more effectively through CTO & Media Familiarization Tours which we are increasing by $50,000. For 2020. While we acknowledge that international travel is a growing segment that we must always dedicate resources too it is far more expensive to receive one guest internationally than one domestically. With a digital focus and the new tracking tools VEP will determine the success of international promotion and make better, more efficient determinations of how many resources to dedicate to this in future years. The assumptions used to determine budget for labor in 2020 includes adding a 2% cost of living increase, an increase in benefits due to the new healthcare spousal coverage and a new staff member at $90,000. The increase in staffing labor cost is directly related to two major proposed changes in the way Visit Estes Park operates during the past year and into 2020: 1. In 2019 there was a reduction in reliance on outside agencies for web sales and content. This includes media buying, creative, social media and blog content. That focus is shifted from agency expense to four stakeholder services staff. Related to stakeholder services, the additional revenue for 2020 is projected to be $114,000. These additional funds from bringing the website sales in-house will help to support continued stakeholder services and continue our theme of providing more local jobs and cultivating in-house creative talent. The four positions dedicated to stakeholder services staffing in 2019 include: Director of Stakeholder Services, Staff Photographer, two Stakeholder Services Coordinators 2. A shift toward improving group sales program to support increased demand during shoulder and off-season time periods. This includes the cost of one full time Director of Sales. Related to the VEP group sales efforts, we are also working on a new IGA cooperative agreement with the town of Estes Park’s Event Center for conducting sales and marketing that may provide additional matching revenue for increased reach and capabilities for VEP in the form of added staff and marketing. 18 Actual 18 Actual 18 Actual $35,598 $17,694 $35,598 $35,000 $32,000 $35,000 $14,500 $22,000 $14,500 19 Budget 19 Budget 19 Budget 20 Proposed 20 Proposed 20 Proposed 10 10 Equipment, PC & Software Cell Phone & Mileage Education & Conferences Media Familiarization Tours Social Media For both Office Supplies and Equipment Expenses we expect lower costs as we don’t plan to move again. If we do have to move this cost could be higher. Our needs have increased and we have more staff with cell phone and mileage reimbursements including group sales in 2020 so we are increasing this to match the estimated need. We are increasing this in 2020 to allow for additional training for the Board, CEO and Staff. We are also maintaining the $1,500 allowance per 12 total staff and for an increase in personal development with more staff attending DI & ESTO for example. Turner PR is the firm that has been with Visit Estes Park for a number of years. In that time, they have continually produced an excellent return. However, now that the PR Coordinator position was filled in 2018 it is time to shift some duties away from the firm and bring appropriate work back in house. We are increasing the number of familiarization tours that we are doing so we will considerably improve international and national awareness about Estes Park as a destination. This is related to the cost of social media management apps that we have received a lower bid cost for thus the savings reflected in 2020. The results of the 2020 Budget include an income of $3,386,313 with an expense of $3,385,500 generating a net result of $813 positive revenue. In other words, a balanced budget, which was our teams’ goal. We believe we have approached this annual operating plan with new exciting programs that will benefit our community and will help to spread demand over the next year improving our year-round performance in the tourism sector. 18 Actual 18 Actual 18 Actual 18 Actual 18 Actual $18,937 $1,998 $26,669 $5,844 $13,125 $55,000 $4,500 $34,500 $14,000 $15,000 $25,000 $11,000 $49,000 $64,000 $7,500 19 Budget 19 Budget 19 Budget 19 Budget 19 Budget 20 Proposed 20 Proposed 20 Proposed 20 Proposed 20 Proposed 11 11 2020 Visit Estes ParkOPERATING PLAN We are pleased to present you with our 2020 Operating Plan. Visit Estes Park is a Destination Marketing Organization dedicated to driving sustainable year-round economic growth by encouraging visitor demand in Estes Park and the surrounding region. We strive to drive sustainable year-round demand and high-quality experiences for our guests while continually improving the quality of life for our community. The 2020 Operating Plan supports the Visit Estes Park Mission by defining who we are and where we are going. It includes our primary goals, objectives and outcomes. Also included are the primary initiatives and budget for 2020. Our entire Board and team at Visit Estes Park are extremely dedicated and committed to the success of everyone in the Estes Valley area. The achievements thus far, validated by all key performance indicators, creates a momentum that we will continually improve; we will continue to invest in the most professional and qualified staff combined with the support of our local business partnerships and agency partners to grow a healthy and sustainable year-round visitor economy. We will continue to focus on continually improving our marketing efforts and encouraging engagement with all community partners and residents. We welcome your feedback regarding the 2020 Visit Estes Park Operating Plan. Eric J Lund President & CEO elund@VisitEstesPark.com 970-586-0500 I would like to take a moment to thank the Visit Estes Park Team and Board of Directors for assisting in the creation of the new 2020 Operating Plan as they all contributed to and considered how best to approach this plan, to continually improve Visit Estes Park and pursue our mission. Mission 12 12 Sean Jurgens, Chair Todd Jirsa Marie Cenac Pat Murphy Deborah Gibson Tonya Humiston Camden Birkeland Mission Vision We drive sustainable year-round economic growth by encouraging visitor demand. To offer positive and memorable experiences for guests and quality of life for our community. 2019 Visit Estes Park Organizational Chart Board of Directors 13 13 Goals, Objectives & Outcomes Goal #1 Goal #3 Goal #2 Create stronger leisure market visitor demand. Promote stakeholder and community engagement. Create stronger group marketing program. Objective 1 Objective 1 Objective 1 Objective 2 Objective 2 Objective 2 Objective 3 Objective 3 Objective 3 Objective 4 Define target audience for each season and promote effectively to them and improve the quality of visitors for overnight stays and the length of stay to an average of 2.8 days. Engage community in tourism marketing efforts resulting in a high level of stakeholder satisfaction. Expand the VEP group marketing team and develop an annual sales plan generating X# of qualified RFP leads annually. Measurable Outcomes: Increase lodging tax revenue by %, PR value & metrics, number & quality of press FAMs. Measurable Outcomes: Number of stakeholders involved in programs, % of local residents who support VEP, KPI results overtime. Measurable Outcomes: Increase total group room nights and revenue generated resulting in measurable ROI. Increase quantity and quality of press and influencer familiarization trips resulting in more than $1,000,000 in media value. Provide clear and accessible KPI data to the public resulting in higher perceived value of VEP marketing. Improve group marketing focused sales materials and distribute to quality potential group planners. Improve lodging revenues by 3% annually. Include stakeholders in strategic planning and development through engagement on committees, cooperative marketing programs and education and accessibility. Generate an increase in group booking room nights of 5% during non-peak periods. Develop a cooperative marketing program for group market stakeholders to participate. 14 14 Dedicate more resources to Video Creative Front Range out-of-home Unique use of social platforms and influencers Digital, Continue our trend into a digital-centric plan with a hyper-analytic approach to ROI to communicate the ultimate concern: did our marketing efforts bring people to Estes Park and at the desired time of year? Content partnerships: Target meaningful, national media outlets to create custom editorial to support key messaging Elevate our own brand approach: Be our own media house Work with CTO on current promotions to key international markets: Germany, UK, Australia, Canada, Mexico, Japan Goal #4 Goal #5 Promote the Estes Park experience in national & international markets Explore opportunities to integrate visitor services. Objective 1 Objective 1 Objective 2 Objective 2 Objective 3 Grow marketing initiatives focused on the Authentic Estes Park experience. Investigate an increase in lodging tax to offset the additional expense of managing the Estes Park Visitor Center from the town and get the proposition on the next election ballot. All to: Continue the evolution of rebranding winter and creating a more educational approach to summer messaging. Measurable Outcomes: PR value & metrics, marketing reach, lodging tax revenues, ROI, Visitor Center and RMNP Visitation Counts. Measurable Outcomes: Improved customer service, improved revenue stream for Visit Estes Park to offset additional costs, relieves Town of Estes Park of Visitor’s Center operating costs, instead making funds available for enhancing the community. PR campaigns that support marketing goals and align with current trends. Improve Visitor Services and guest experience coordination with VEP marketing initiatives and enhance awareness between staff. Establish a presence at international trade shows for top of mind awareness.  Marketing Program Overview Goal #1 Goal #2 Create stronger leisure market visitor demand. Promote the Estes Park experience in national & international markets 15 15 1+ kids in home Minimum household income of $150k+ High propensity to take family vacations, visit national parks, hike, camp and enjoy the outdoors as a family Highlighting: Canoeing/Kayaking –Fishing –Hiking –Whitewater Rafting DINKs: Dual Income No Kids in home (A35–’til death do us part) $250k minimum net worth Participate in active outdoor activities Good living, good eats, good memories Include Super Boomers as a strategic segment: Adults 55-65, overnight past trip to CO, NM, UT: HHI $100K+ Denver: HHI $75K+ Targeting adults 25–45 with a minimum income of $50k per year Highly invested inactive outdoor lifestyle Hiking, mountain biking, National Parks, camping, climbing, backpacking, etc. Highlighting: Backpacking – Mountain Biking – Rock Climbing – BC/XC Skiing – Whitewater Rafting FAMILIES COUPLES ADVENTURERS Media Target Audiences – Getting America Outside Families are the bread & butter for Estes Park Couples, particularly those who are retired, have more to spend & more freedom to travel Adventurers represent a growth area in alignment with the outdoor industry boom and is essential to Estes Park branding 16 16 2 new positions dedicated to Group Sales New RFP process with site inspection support and post event survey New partner Group Sales Committee Enhanced stakeholder cooperative marketing opportunities New digital Lead services (CVENT) for increased RFP’s New marketing materials dedicated to promote group sales New tradeshow schedule for improving RFP’s and group sales New advertising program dedicated to group marketing Group Marketing Program Overview Goal #1 Create stronger group marketing program. For 2019 the start of a new group sales program initiative was launched utilizing just over 4% of the Visit Estes Park annual budget. The goal was to improve demand for the group market especially during off and shoulder seasons. This resulted in Estes Park becoming more visible as a destination for group plan- ners, wholesalers and tour operators. The Wedding Market is also very valuable to our region and three wedding shows are planned to generate increased Requests for Proposals (RFP). The 2020 Group Marketing Program will utilize approximately 11% of the annual budget and will include two new staff positions including a Director of Sales and Sales Manager. The Group Sales Manager will be a position shared in cost with the Town of Estes Park through a new IGA. The Program will also include development of a group trade show combined with group digital and traditional marketing assets that will drive increased requests for proposal through the Visit Estes Park Website. There will also be a new Group Sales Committee to provide stakeholder input and planning as a part of the program. A cooperative marketing package will be developed to offer stakeholders opportunities to extend their reach into the group market at a reduced cost and to help supplement the Visit Estes Park annual budget. A new RFP process will be developed to measure outcomes of group marketing efforts and to improve the booking rates of groups into Estes Park. Additionally, new digital group marketing assets will include pages dedicated to group planners to better assist them with group planning and customized group mar- keting materials that will better respond to group inquiries. These include Marketing brochures, flyers and portfolio kits dedicated to group sales marketing. Expected outcomes include: # of RFP’s generated, # of site tours supported, # of group planners met with, and if possible to measure, tracking of groups booked, # of room nights generated and total sales influenced. 2020 planned improvements to group marketing program 17 17 Stakeholder Services Program Overview Goal #3 Promote stakeholder and community engagement. In 2019 the Stakeholder Services team quadrupled in size, bringing on three new team members. New hires include a Stakeholder Services Coordinator and Photographer. Internally, an existing employee took on more responsibilities to become an additional Stakeholder Services Coordinator. With this new sales team we transferred websites sales from a third-party provider, Destination Travel Network, in house to be handled by the Visit Estes Park Stakeholder Services team. 2020 will be dedicated to solidifying Stakeholder Services. This will entail educating our team on the website advertisements, producing a quality Visitors Guide, configuring the sales program to fit our stake- holders, and restructuring of the Featured Listings Lottery via a Stakeholder Services committee made up of stakeholders from all sectors of the tourism industry. Continuation and improvement of the Free Stakeholder Services program (launched in 2019) throughout 2020 remains integral to the success and value of the Stakeholder Services program. These free services not only ensure the stakeholders that their investment in advertising with VEP is maintained throughout the year, this allows for the website to be filled with quality content and photography on listings and dis- play ads throughout the website. Supplementary to content management, free services include posting of specials and events for stakeholders. This allows stakeholders to promote directly and quickly to guests. The guests benefit from special pricing and discovery of unique local events. 2020 Planned Solidification of Stakeholder Services Team Education and training of staff on cooperative advertising programs for stakeholders Improved configuration of sales program A A B B C C D D Loading and managing content on the website Google analytics training in order to teach stakeholders Data tracking and understanding Managing visitor guide advertising coordination Organization of available products by services guide Reworking of website and Visitor Guide advertising pricing to reflect changes in redesigns Consideration and research seasonal advertising options on website Amend sales time frame to accommodate stakeholder schedules 18 18 Restructuring of feature listing lottery program Continuation and improvement of the Free Stakeholder Services program A A B B C C i D E Creation of Stakeholder Services committee Survey stakeholders to find possible solutions Detailed analysis of options Receive input from stakeholderse on options Implement changes Distribution of materials to continue to promote free services Continue offering free 2 hour photoshoots to any tourisn sector business in town Improves website and provides photography for other marketing avenues Continuation of frequent and regular content management of ads, listings, events and specials Expected outcomes include: Generate cooperative marketing revenues, improve overall quality and appearance of advertisements on the website, provide unmatched quality of service to our stakeholders, and offer successful avenues of advertising to stakeholders that supports their businesses. Every community must compete with every other community for their share of the world’s attention, customers, and investment. To compete, people need to be aware of a community and meet its people. This is achieved through clearly developing, articulating and managing the community’s brand. Efforts must be made to promote, market, sell and engage potential visitors. And all of this must be reinforced again and again. DMO’s are uniquely positioned to do this. Addressing this need for destination promotion is for the benefit and well being of every person in our community. It is a common good. It is an essential investment to develop opportunities and build quality of life to benefit all the residents of our community. Community Engagement Plan Goal #5 Explore opportunities to integrate visitor services. Why develop a Visit Estes Park Community Engagement Plan? A B C 19 19 Elected by the people of the Estes Park Tourism Tax District for establishment of a destination marketing organization paid for by lodging taxes passed on to visitors Lift up and support our entire community by supporting small business in the tourism sector of our market Improve job sustainability as a year-round destination DMO Structure – Board represented by appointees of the County and Town Include our Vision, Mission, Brand Promise, About Us in marketing Earn a seat at the table – Consider forming an Advisory Board made up of community business and non-business members – Recommend 20-25 people Listen and engage Advocate Educated Repeat the above Visitors Board – Both County and Town Tourism Industry Stakeholders Residents Town and County Officials Everyone to the left Anyone that interacts with the destination for the visitor experience What is our true reason for being? How to be treated like an important community partner that drives investment for the ultimate beneficiary: the local communities, residents that we represent and serve Who are our customers?Who do we serve? A A A A B B B B C C C D D D E E E We start local:Communications to VEP Board of Directors Communications to our county government Communications to our town government Communications to our industry Town, County Officials Chamber, EDC, Business Community Regional Entities, CADMO, MPI State Elected Officials, CTO Federally Elected Officials, Brand USA Advocacy Plan and Examples Advocacy Plan and Examples A A B C D 20 20 (What goes up on the Transparency Page website, how we should disseminate, how we convince hoteliers and other stakeholders to share this information) Budgets Board Meeting schedules, agendas, minutes Media plans/strategic plans Research data including pace reports, white papers New key words in the 2019 tourism lexicon: (community, family, funding, help, information, investment, job, local, need, opportunity, people, program, project, provide, public, service, support, thank, neighbor, work) Sample mission, vision, about us statements Rethinking key phrases used by us Restating economic impact, value and other stats: Transparency Policy Speaking the Language A A B B C C D D Direct Impact: Direct economic impacts are the immediate changes that occur within the economy because of a visitor expenditure; typically; accommodation, transportation, attraction fees and spending at local restaurants. Thus: When visitors pay for a meal, a hotel room or buy something from a local business, their money stays in the community and multiplies. Indirect Impact: Indirect economic impacts are those resulting from expenditure by tourism related industries such as wages and purchases of goods and services from suppliers. The whole supply chain within each niche such as sales, jobs and income due to the indirect effects associated within the tourism industry. Thus: When visitors leave their money behind at our local business, that merchant spends that money in our local community and pays people to work. Induced Impact: Induced economic impacts involve the expenditure or output of the employees and suppliers who are paid with the money spent by the visitors. Thus: When someone works at a local business where a visitor spends money, they take their paycheck home and spend it elsewhere in the community - on groceries, housing, cars, clothing - and all the money originally left behind by a visitor spreads around through our hometown. Tax Revenue: The tax revenues generated by tourism-related spending in Estes Park represents a primary source of state, county and town government funding that helps to build roads, support schools, pay for healthcare and other vital programs and preserve nature. Thus: Tourism tax revenue helps communities and people by enhancing the communities and placing people in jobs. Jobs: Looking beyond direct impact, tourism reaches into many other sectors, such as construction, manufacturing and IT services, having a multiplier effect along the value chain. It is estimated that every job in the core tourism sector creates approximately 1.5 additional or indirect jobs in the tourism-related economy. Thus: Tourism works for communities. Creation of jobs employing residents in a community that can grow through the economic impact of tourism. 21 21 Community Engagement Tactics Tourism Week Elected Officials Engagement Events Form a Community Advisory Board with Board involvement: 3 Community, 3 hospitality, 3 hotels, 3 Mayor/Town reps, 3 County Reps, 3 Visitor Service industry, 2 Visit Estes Park Board Members (Makes recommendations and comments on programs, non-binding) Offer a local’s discount with Parks and Rec card Legislative updates and Educational summits Newsletter, CEO communications, Annual Report Fall marketing roll-out and honors event, stakeholder support and training Free Google Business listing training Town Hall meetings, county commissioner meetings for updates Form a certified tourism ambassadors’ program (Volunteers) Gather input for VEP strategic plan – Engage the community Public Meetings One on one presentations Marketing Roll-Out event We host a gathering of Tourism Industry stakeholders during NTTW / US Travels designated week of global travel celebration Community Best Practices A B C Expected Outcomes: New Community Advisory Board for greater engagement, improve community perception and support of visitor market sector, transparency and understanding of Visit Estes Park programs and their direct and indirect benefit upon our local residents, greater community feedback and recommendations to support future strategic planning. 22 22 Income Distric Tax Fund Visitor Guide Advertising Fees - Stakeholder Larimer County PILT Grants & Awards Other Income Total 18 Actual 18 Actual 18 Actual 18 Actual 18 Actual 18 Actual 18 Actual $2,288,485 $269,831 $300,101 $6,549 $111,331 $1,657 $2,977,954 $2,400,000 $261,000 $488,000 $5,412.66 $0 $118.51 $3,154.531.17 $2,472,000 $280,000 $602,000 $5,412.66 $25,000 $1,900 $3,386,312.66 3% 7.28% 23.36% 0% 1503.24% 7.35% 3% increase over 19 budget equal to cost of production 18 actual x 1.5 to account for in house sales - 18-July-Dec only. SALY Per Eric, 25,000 grant in 2020 19 Budget 19 Budget 19 Budget 19 Budget 19 Budget 19 Budget 19 Budget 20 Proposed 20 Proposed 20 Proposed 20 Proposed 20 Proposed 20 Proposed 20 Proposed % Change % Change % Change % Change % Change % Change % Change Notes Notes Notes Notes Notes Budget Overview – 2020 Proposed Budget 23 23 Expense Special ADV SEO Advertising Production & Distrib/Leisure Research Website Brand Strategy Economic Development 18 Actual 18 Actual 18 Actual 18 Actual 18 Actual 18 Actual 18 Actual 18 Actual $128,951 $27,000 $1,530,343 $0 $41,483 $113,325 $987 $20,000 $0 $24,000 $1,300,00 $0 $100,000 $100,000 $5,000 $20,000 $25,000 $24,00 $1,140,000 $0 $50,000 $65,000 $0 $20,000 0% -14.04% -100% -53.85% 0% equal to grant awards - 3800 2000 per month contract Simpleview Group sales moved to new category 4900 Dead category 50% of arrivalist fee, can be reduced to 0 if town is not willing to split Website fees, post rebuild per contracts EDC & Chamber 19 Budget 19 Budget 19 Budget 19 Budget 19 Budget 19 Budget 19 Budget 19 Budget 20 Proposed 20 Proposed 20 Proposed 20 Proposed 20 Proposed 20 Proposed 20 Proposed 20 Proposed % Change % Change % Change % Change % Change % Change % Change % Change Notes Notes Notes Notes Notes Notes Notes 24 24 Group Sales & Group Marketing Trade Shows International Promotion Int Audit Bookkeeping Contingencies (general Ops) Personnel Services Payroll Processing & HR 18 Actual 18 Actual 18 Actual 18 Actual 18 Actual 18 Actual 18 Actual 18 Actual n/a $1,447 $35,598 $31,536 $10,744 $2,555 $596,139 $7,708 n/a $2,500 $35,000 $37,000 $2,000 $2,500 $950,000 $7,500 $110,000 $0 $14,500 $19,000 $2,500 $2,500 $1,213,000 $4,500 -141.38% -94.74% 20% 0% 21.68% -66.67% moved from 4514 in 2019 per EL Moved to group sales per EL INTL advertising, FAMS and content 20 to not include forensic expenses Credit card processing fees MISC category Current staff with 1-4% performance, 2% COL, increase in benefits now offering spousal coverage, and new staff at $90k salary. Staff benefits are at 38% Benefit expense for town processing, HR fee 19 Budget 19 Budget 19 Budget 19 Budget 19 Budget 19 Budget 19 Budget 19 Budget 20 Proposed 20 Proposed 20 Proposed 20 Proposed 20 Proposed 20 Proposed 20 Proposed 20 Proposed % Change % Change % Change % Change % Change % Change % Change % Change Notes Notes Notes Notes Notes Notes Notes Notes 25 25 Legal Office Sup, Postage, Printing Equip, PC & Software Rent & Utilities Insurance Cell Phone & Mileage Education & Conferences IT Support 18 Actual 18 Actual 18 Actual 18 Actual 18 Actual 18 Actual 18 Actual 18 Actual $26,035 $17,694 $18,937 $39,448 $14,915 $1,998 $26,669 $3,500 $20,000 $32,000 $55,000 $75,000 $12,000 $4,500 $34,500 $5,000 20,000 $22,000 $25,000 $75,000 $15,000 $11,000 $49,000 $2,000 0% -45.45% -120% 0% 20% 59.09% 29.59% -150% SALY New staff expense, potential office move Jan 1 - risk New staff expense, potential office move Jan 1 - risk same, no increase even if new space SALY Needs increased, lot more mileage in 19 than expected, new staff with cell phone reimbursement $1,500/per 13 staff + increase conference attendance, $15,000 for CEO/Board/Staff Development ICE 19 Budget 19 Budget 19 Budget 19 Budget 19 Budget 19 Budget 19 Budget 19 Budget 20 Proposed 20 Proposed 20 Proposed 20 Proposed 20 Proposed 20 Proposed 20 Proposed 20 Proposed % Change % Change % Change % Change % Change % Change % Change % Change Notes Notes Notes Notes Notes Notes Notes Notes 26 26 Meals & Incidentals Membership Media Familiarization Tours Public Relations Firm Public Relations Promotions eMail Marketing/eNews Social Media Stakeholder Communications 18 Actual 18 Actual 18 Actual 18 Actual 18 Actual 18 Actual 18 Actual 18 Actual $4,536 $8,848 $5,844 $92,754 $10,305 $2,670 $13,125 $3,695 $7,000 $18,000 $14,000 $80,000 $17,000 $7,200 $15,000 $6,000 $9,000 $18,000 $64,000 $80,000 $18,000 $9,000 $7,500 $10,000 22.22% 0% 78.13% 0% 5.56% 20% -100% 40% increased for more travel and new staff no net new memberships, cancel an existing to add new increase FAM tours for 2020 SALY, potentially put out to bid per SD small increase for quality promo items, and quarterly CO press increase frequency went out to bid, reduction in costs request to increase from Abi 19 Budget 19 Budget 19 Budget 19 Budget 19 Budget 19 Budget 19 Budget 19 Budget 20 Proposed 20 Proposed 20 Proposed 20 Proposed 20 Proposed 20 Proposed 20 Proposed 20 Proposed % Change % Change % Change % Change % Change % Change % Change % Change Notes Notes Notes Notes Notes Notes Notes Notes 27 27 Mktg Data & Analytics Platform OVG Expenses Total Expenses Total Income Net Income 18 Actual 18 Actual 18 Actual 18 Actual 18 Actual $78,806 $245,368 $3,162,963 $2,977,954 -$185,009 $0 $260,00 $3,247,700.66 $3,154,531.17 -$93,168.83 $0 $261,000 $3,385,500 $3,386,312.66 $812.66 0.38% 4.07% was “Arrivalist”, moved to research in plan for increase per contract 19 Budget 19 Budget 19 Budget 19 Budget 19 Budget 20 Proposed 20 Proposed 20 Proposed 20 Proposed 20 Proposed % Change % Change % Change Notes Notes 28 28 1 Photos: Visit Estes Park 2018/19 12 MONTH VISITOR SURVEY RESULTS OCTOBER 4, 2019 PREPARED FOR VISIT ESTES PARK 2 OUTLINE •Purpose, methodology & tourism volume indicators •Place of residence & visitor type •Demographics •Trip planning & decision factors •Trip characteristics •Ratings of experience •General travel patterns & preferences •Summary •Notable differences by visitor type •Notable differences by season 3 PURPOSE OF THE RESEARCH •Measure quarterly & year-round profile of visitors to Estes Park •This report summarizes the overall, year-round results of four quarters of research: Summer (Jun – Aug 2018), Fall (Sept – Nov 2018), Winter (Dec 2018 – Feb 2019), Spring (Mar – Jun 2, 2019). •Research is intended to track a wide range of topics for purposes of marketing strategy, product development & evaluation, & related issues •Evaluate economic impact of tourism in Estes Park Local Marketing District •Annual and quarterly analyses in progress 29 4 •Research approach 1. Brief intercept survey (with email collection for post-trip survey) 2. In-depth post-trip survey (follow-up survey with intercept respondents) •Intercept survey •Survey locations: 65% EP Visitor Center, 25% downtown EP, 3% EP Fairgrounds, 2% YMCA, 6% other (US 36 parking garage, National Park Village, Fall River Visitor Center, etc.). •9% of surveys were conducted at a mix of 7 special events (incl. in above locations) •Survey topics: Geographic origin, overnight stay in EP area (yes/no), age, gender •Survey weighting: Results are weighted to be representative of visitor volume by day of week and month •Weighting benchmarks: US 36/34 traffic counts and EPVC visits Overall Summer Fall Winter Spring Sample Size:3,003 1,449 672 513 369 95% Confidence Interval:+/-1.8 ppts +/- 2.6 ppts +/- 3.8 ppts +/- 5.3 ppts. +/- 5.1 ppts SURVEY METHODOLOGY 5 SURVEY METHODOLOGY •Post-trip survey •Response: •2,495 emails collected from intercept respondents (83.1% of intercept respondents) •2,219 emails delivered •1,062 survey responses received (47.9% response rate) •888 full completes (84%), 174 partial completes (16%) •Survey weighting: Same weighting as applied to intercept respondents •Weighted post-trip respondents were similar to weighted intercept respondents on the basis of geographic origin, day/overnight trip, age, gender, month of visit, and day of week of visit (weekday / weekend). Overall Summer Fall Winter Spring Sample Size:1,062 486 187 222 167 95% Confidence Interval:+/-3.0 ppts +/- 4.4 ppts +/- 7.2 ppts +/- 6.6 ppts. +/- 7.6 ppts 6 SEASONALITY OF TOURISM ACTIVITY ƒMultiple Estes Park tourism indicators exhibit generally similar seasonal variations (with some logical differences), providing a basis for calibrating survey results to visitor volume.30 7 SEASONALITY OF HWY TRAFFIC ƒUS 34 & 36 tourist traffic distribution (above 8,000 daily count), June 2018 – May 2019: ƒQuarterly: 55% summer, 25% fall, 5% winter, 15% spring. ƒDaily: 59.6% weekday (M-F), 40.4% weekend (Sa-Su). 8 SEASONALITY OF EPVC VISITORS ƒEstes Park Visitor Center visitors, June 2018 - May 2019: ƒQuarterly: 57% Summer, 25% Fall, 5% Winter, 13% Spring. ƒDaily: 62.1% weekday (M-F), 37.9% weekend (Sa-Su). 9 SEASONALITY OF RMNP VISITORS ƒRMNP recreational visits, June 2018 – May 2019: ƒAll entrances ex. Grand Lake: 53% Summer, 28% Fall, 6% Winter, 13% Spring. ƒBeaver Meadows / Fall River only: 51% Summer, 28% Fall, 6% Winter, 14% Spring.31 10 SEASONALITY OF TAXABLE SALES ƒTown of Estes Park taxable sales, June 2018 – May 2019: ƒFood, lodging, retail, & recreation: 43% Summer, 27% Fall, 13% Winter, 17% Spring. ƒLodging only: 46% Summer, 28% Fall, 11% Winter, 15% Spring. 11 PLACE OF RESIDENCE & VISITOR TYPE 1212 CENSUS REGION/WORLD REGION ƒOverall, Colorado accounted for 39.8% of visitors, followed by the Midwest (24.7%), South (19.6%), other U.S. (12.1%), and international/US territories (3.8%). ƒThe share of visitors from Colorado was highest in Winter (48.5%) and lowest in Spring (27.7%). ƒOvernight: Top areas: Midwest (33.5%), CO (25.1%), and South (24.0%). ƒDay:Top areas: CO (52.0%), Midwest (17.1%), and South (15.9%). 32 1313 CENSUS DIVISION ƒOverall: After Colorado (39.8%), top Census Divisions are in the West N. Cent – 13.8%, West S. Central – 11.3%, and East N. Central – 10.8%. ƒOvernight: Top areas: CO (25.1%), WNC (20.7%), WSC (15.4%), ENC (12.8%). ƒDay: Top areas: CO (52.0%), ENC (9.3%), WSC (8.0%), WNC (7.8%). 1414 STATE : ALL VISITORS ƒTop 7 markets: Colorado (39.8%), Texas (8.2%), Illinois (3.7%), Missouri (3.2%), California (3.1%), Kansas (2.8%), and Nebraska (2.7%) Æ 63.5% combined. ƒThe top 10 states account for 71.1% of visitors; top 15 – 79.6%; top 20 – 84.9%. 1515 STATE : OVERNIGHT VISITORS ƒTop 8 overnight markets: Colorado (25.1%), Texas (11.0%), Missouri (4.8%), Nebraska (4.8%), Illinois (4.3%), Kansas (4.3%), Iowa (3.2%) and Florida (3.2%) Æ 60.6% combined. ƒThe top 10 states account for 66.5% of overnight visitors; top 15 – 77.6%; top 20 – 83.9%. 33 1616 STATE : DAY VISITORS ƒTop 7 day markets (day trip from home or staying night elsewhere): Colorado (52.0%), Texas (5.9%), Illinois (3.1%), California (3.1%), Ohio (2.4%), Minnesota (2.0%), Florida (2.0%), Missouri (2.0%) Æ 72.6% combined. ƒThe top 10 states account for 75.7% of overnight visitors; top 15 – 82.0%; top 20 – 86.9%. 1717 STATES: TOP 10 ƒTop 10 states of overnight visitors: CO (25.1%), TX (11.0%), MO (4.8%), NE (4.8%), IL (4.3%), KS (4.3%), IA (3.2%), FL (3.2%), CA (3.0%), MN (2.8%) Æ 66.5% combined ƒTop 10 states of day visitors: CO – 52.0%, TX – 5.9%, IL – 3.1%, CA – 3.1%, OH – 2.4%, MN – 2.0%, FL – 2.0%, MO – 2.0%, PA – 1.6%, MI – 1.5%Æ 75.7% combined. 1818 DMAS: TOP 10 ƒDenver is the top DMA overall (36.6%) by a significant margin. ƒThere were significantly fewer respondents from Denver in Spring (24.0%) relative to other seasons. Winter had the highest share of Denver respondents (46.9%). ƒOvernight visitors were less likely to be from the Denver DMA than day visitors (20.7% vs. 49.8%). 34 1919 COLORADO COUNTIES ƒLarimer County accounted for 6.7% of total respondents, followed by Weld (5.3%), Boulder (4.9%), Jefferson (4.2%), Denver (3.9%), Adams (3.9%), Arapahoe (3.6%), El Paso (2.5%), and Douglas (2.3%). 2020 COUNTIES: TOP 10 ƒTop Colorado counties overall: Larimer (6.6%), followed by Weld (5.2%), Boulder (4.8%), Jefferson (4.1%), Denver (3.8%), Adams (3.8%), Arapahoe (3.5%), El Paso (2.4%), Douglas (2.3%), and Broomfield (0.5%). 2121 CITIES: TOP 10 ƒTop CO cities, overall: Fort Collins (4.4%), Denver (3.8%), Longmont (2.8%), Littleton (2.2%), Aurora (2.2%), Colorado Springs (1.9%), Greeley (1.8%), Loveland (1.6%). 35 2222 VISITORS VS. 2ND HOMEOWNERS ƒThe vast majority of intercept survey respondents were visitors to the Estes Park area (99%). Just 1% were second homeowners/seasonal residents. 2323 STAYING OVERNIGHT IN EP AREA? ƒOverall, 45% were staying overnight in or within ten miles of Estes Park, while most visitors were visiting for the day only (54%), and 1% were uncertain. ƒThe share of visitors staying overnight was highest in Summer (50%) and lowest in Spring (33%). ƒColorado residents: 28% were on an overnight trip to EP, 70% were on a day trip. ƒOut of state / foreign: 56% were staying overnight in EP, 43% visited EP for the day only. ƒOn both weekdays and weekends, day visitors outnumbered overnight visitors (51% vs. 48% on weekdays; 59% vs. 40% on weekends). 2424 VISITOR TYPE (POST-TRIP SURVEY) ƒBased on the Post-Trip Survey, 44% of respondents overall were visitors spending the night in the EP area (similar to 45% per intercept). ƒ28% were day visitors spending the night elsewhere. ƒ27% were visitors on a day trip from home. ƒ1% were seasonal resident / second homeowner. ƒSubsequent Post Trip survey results are segmented by the three largest visitor type categories, and noteworthy differences between segments are described where applicable. 36 25 DEMOGRAPHICS 2626 AGE, GENDER ƒThe year-round average age was 48.5 (median 49.0), with broad distribution across the 25-74 age range (14% - 21% in each 10-year cohort). ƒThe age profile was significantly older in summer/fall (avg. 49.9 - 49.7) than winter/spring (avg. 43.3 – 42.2). ƒThe sample was roughly evenly balanced between women (51%) and men (49%). 2727 HOUSEHOLD/FAMILY STATUS ƒOverall, the leading group is couples with no kids at home (36%), followed by couples with kids at home (34%), empty nesters (18%), and singles without kids (13%). ƒThe share of couples with no children at home is greatest in Winter (46%), lowest in Spring (29%). ƒThe share of households with children at home is highest in Summer (37%), lowest in Fall (24%). ƒVisitors on day trip from home are more likely than other visitor segments to be singles with no children (20% vs. 10-12%), less likely to be empty-nesters (12% vs. 18%-23%).37 2828 TRAVEL PARTY ƒOverall, respondents were most likely to have travelled with a spouse or partner (75%), followed by children (34%), other family/relatives (22%), and friends (15%). ƒRespondents are more likely to have visited with children and grandchildren in Summer than in other seasons. ƒWinter had the greatest share of respondents traveling by themselves (8% vs. 2%-3% in other seasons). 2929 PARTY SIZE (FOR SHARED EXPENSES) ƒThe largest share of parties (based on people sharing expenses) had two people (47%), with 5% alone, 31% in groups of 3-4, 11% in parties of 5-6, and 5% in parties of 7+ people. The average party size was 3.2 people. ƒParty sizes were largest in Summer (3.5) and smallest in Winter (2.6). 3030 HOUSEHOLD INCOME ƒThe interpolated median annual household income is $100,000 for all visitors, with most earning $25,000 - $199,999 (85%). ƒThe distribution of income was roughly similar by season (median $99,000 - $103,000). ƒOvernight visitors (median $108,000) and day visitors spending the night elsewhere (median $105,000) had had a somewhat more affluent profile than day trippers from home (median $88,000). 38 31 TRIP PLANNING & DECISION FACTORS 3232 PRIMARY REASON FOR VISIT ƒOverall, most primarily came to Estes Park for vacation/leisure/recreation (74%). Smaller shares primarily came to visit family/friends/relatives (10%), a special event/festival (5%), or combined business/pleasure (2%). ƒDay trippers from home were comparatively likely to come for special events (12%). ƒDay visitors spending the night elsewhere were comparatively likely to visit friends/ family (17%). 3333 FACTORS IN DECISION TO VISIT ƒScenic beauty was rated most important (9.3), followed by a relaxing mountain getaway (8.3), being close to nature (8.3), and RMNP (8.2). ƒAlso important to many were wildlife viewing (7.7), experiencing adventure/discovery/exploration (7.7 – asked in winter/spring only), climate/weather (7.5), outdoor recreation (7.3), experience quiet/solitude/ uncrowded destination (7.1 – asked in winter/spring only), and easy to get to (7.0).39 3434 FACTORS IN DECISION TO VISIT: BY SEASON ƒThe two most important factors overall, scenic beauty & relaxing mountain getaway, were highly important in all four seasons. ƒBeing close to nature & experience adventure / discovery / exploration were somewhat more important in Spring than Winter. ƒWildlife viewing was somewhat more important in Fall (8.4) than other seasons (7.1 – 7.6). ƒOutdoor recreation was somewhat more important in Summer/Fall (7.5) than Winter/Spring (6.4 – 6.8). ƒEnjoy cozy winter experiences was more important in Winter (6.1) than Spring (3.9). 3535 FACTORS IN DECISION TO VISIT: BY VISITOR TYPE ƒOvernight visitors placed somewhat more importance than other segments on relaxing mountain getaway, outdoor recreation, experience quiet/solitude/uncrowded destination, and enjoy cozy winter experiences. ƒDay visitors spending the night elsewhere placed somewhat more importance than other segments on visiting friends and family in the area. ƒDay visitors from home placed somewhat more importance than other segments on ease of getting to EP, visiting the downtown area, and festival/special event. BY VISITOR TYPE Overnight visitors placed somewhat more importance than other segments on relaxing mountain getaway outdoor recreation 3636 OTHER DESTINATIONS CONSIDERED ƒOverall, most visitors (67%) did not consider other destinations before deciding to visit Estes Park, while 33% considered other destinations (27% in Colorado, and 8% outside of Colorado). ƒConsideration of other destinations was highest in Spring (40%) and lowest in Winter (23%). ƒDay visitors spending the night elsewhere were most likely to consider other destinations (45%). ƒVisitors spending the night in EP were most likely to consider destinations outside of Colo (13%). ƒDay visitors from home were least likely to consider other destinations (16%). Top other destinations considered: - Colo. Spgs/Garden of the Gods/Pikes Peak: 9% - Denver: 5% - Boulder: 5% - Breckenridge: 3% - Vail, Ft Collins, Red Rocks, Glenwood Spgs: 2% each 40 3737 SINGLE OR MULTI-DESTINATION ƒOverall, 60% of respondents said that the Estes/RMNP area was their only destination this trip, while 40% were on a multi-destination trip. ƒThe share of visitors on a multiple-destination trip (40% overall) was highest in Spring (46%), and lowest in Winter (30%). ƒBy visitor type, multi-destination trips were highest among day visitors spending the night elsewhere (68%), and lowest among visitors on a day trip from home (15%). 3838 MULTIPLE DESTINATION TRIP: OTHER DESTINATIONS ƒVisitors to Estes as part of a multiple destination trip tended to also visit Front Range cities such as Denver (53%), Boulder (39%), Fort Collins (20%), and Colorado Springs (16%); and to a lesser degree mountain destinations such as Grand Lake (12%) and Breckenridge (7%). Top other CO destinations: - Colo. Spgs/Garden of the Gods/Pikes Peak: 16% - Golden, Longmont, Red Rocks: 2% each - Mesa Verde, Georgetown, Canon City, Durango: 1% each (If on multiple destination trip) 3939 MULTIPLE DESTINATION TRIP: WAS EP PRIMARY DESTINATION, PLANNED STOP ? ƒAmong those on a multiple destination trip, 51% cited the Estes/RMNP area as their primary destination, while 49% considered Estes/RMNP to be a secondary destination. ƒVisitors in Summer and Fall were more likely to have considered EP to be a primary destination (56% and 54% respectively) than visitors in winter (41%) and spring (37%). ƒMost multiple destination visitors whose primary destination was elsewhere planned their stop in the Estes/RMNP area (80%). The remaining 20% made an unplanned stop. 41 4040 DAY VISITORS: CONSIDERED SPENDING NIGHT IN EP? ƒAmong day visitors to EP who spent the night elsewhere (away from home), a minority (24%) considered spending the night in EP -- including 6% who looked into lodging options and 18% who didn’t. ƒLeading reasons for not staying in EP (comments): Already had lodging arranged elsewhere; staying with friends/family who live elsewhere; didn’t know that staying overnight in area was an option; didn’t think about it ahead of time; other location more central; too expensive; not enough time on trip; etc. (Universe: Day visitors to EP who spent night elsewhere. Asked in winter/spring only.) 4141 DECISION LEAD TIME ƒJust 25% of winter visitors decided to visit at least a month in advance, much shorter than visitors in other seasons (44 – 47%). ƒVisitors spending the night in the area decided to visit furthest in advance of their arrival, with 68% deciding a month or more in advance, in comparison to 36% of day visitors spending the night elsewhere and 11% of day visitors from home. 4242 INFORMATION SOURCES USED TO PLAN TRIP ƒAs is common in travel, visitors were most likely to have used previous visits (48%) and recommendations from family/friends/word of mouth (41%) to plan their trips. ƒOther leading sources included RMNP info/website (32%), Visit EP website (16%), and official EP Visitor Guide (14%). ƒOvernight visitors tended to use more sources (average 2.4 sources) than day visitors spending the night elsewhere (2.0 sources) and day trippers from home (1.7 sources). What information sources did you use to plan your trip before you arrived in the Estes Park area? (Check all that apply) 42 4343 INFO SOURCES USED WHILE IN EP ƒOnce in Estes Park, the EPVC (42%), EP Visitor’s Guide (31%), and RMNP VCs (31%) were most widely used. (Results were influenced by the fact that 65% of surveys were conducted at the EPVC.) ƒVisitors in fall were heavier consumers of information sources (average of 2.1 sources) than visitors in other seasons (1.5 – 1.7 sources). ƒBy visitor type, visitors spending the night in the EP area were the heaviest consumers of info sources (average of 2.3 sources), followed by visitors spending the night elsewhere (1.5 sources) and day trippers from home (1.0 sources). While in Estes Park, what information sources did you use to plan activities/events? (Check all that apply) 44 TRIP CHARACTERISTICS 4545 DAY VISITORS: OVERNIGHT LOCATIONS ƒAmong day visitors to EP who spent the night elsewhere (away from home), top lodging locations were Denver (39%), the Boulder/Lyons/Longmont area (24%), and Loveland (14%). ƒThe Denver area was more popular in Winter and Spring (48% and 47%) than Summer and Fall (36% and 34%). 43 4646 LODGING TYPE (OVERNIGHT IN EP AREA) ƒMost respondents staying overnight in the EP area stayed in paid commercial lodging (62%) or rent-by-owner lodging (17%). ƒSmaller shares tent camped (8%), stayed in a second home or timeshare (6%), used an RV/ camper van (5%), stayed with family/friends who live in the area (4%), or backpacked (1%). What type(s) of lodging did you use while staying in the Estes Park area? (Please check all that apply) 4747 HOW DID YOU MAKE RESERVATIONS? ƒVisitors spending the night in the Estes Park area were most likely to book their accommodations directly with the lodge/hotel via website (30%) or phone (26%). Other methods of booking include OTAs (19%) and rent-by-owner sites such as VRBO, Homeaway, and Airbnb (18%). Four percent had no reservations. 4848 NIGHTS IN AREA ƒOvernight visitors lodging in the Estes Park area stayed an average of 4.5 nights in the area, with 11% staying one night, 27% staying 2 nights, 26% staying 3 nights, 29% staying 4-7 nights, and 6% staying 8+ nights. ƒAverage lengths of stay are longest in Summer (4.8 nights) and Fall (4.7 nights), followed by Spring (3.4 nights) and Winter (2.7 nights).44 4949 TOTAL NIGHTS AWAY ƒVisitors spending the night in the EP area were away from home an average of 7.0 nights in total, including 4.5 nights in EP and 2.5 nights elsewhere. ƒRelatedly, 57% of visitors spending the night in EP also spent at least 1 night elsewhere. ƒVisitors were away from home fewer nights on average in Winter (4.5 nights) than in other seasons (6.9 – 7.4 nights). 5050 DID YOU FLY ? (NON-COLORADO) ƒRoughly half of out-of-state/international visitors flew as part of their travel to Estes Park (51%), including 48% to DEN and 3% to other airports. ƒSummer saw the smallest share of respondents that flew (41%), while Winter saw the greatest share (73%). ƒDay visitors spending the night elsewhere were more likely to fly (63%) than overnight visitors to Estes Park (42%). 5151 ACTIVITY PARTICIPATION (1 OF 2) ƒThe most popular activities were visiting RMNP (74%), walking (66%), scenic drive (65%), wildlife viewing (59%), shopping (55%), and hiking (45%).45 5252 ACTIVITY PARTICIPATION (2 OF 2) ƒAltogether, fall visitors tended to participate in more activities (average 6.0 activities) than visitors in summer (5.5 activities), spring (4.8 activities), and winter (4.3 activities). ƒAltogether, overnight visitors tended to participate in more activities (average 6.4 activities) than day visitors in aggregate (4.5 activities). 5353 AREAS OF RMNP VISITED ƒOf those who visited RMNP, the largest share visited the Bear Lake/Glacier Gorge/Moraine Park area (66%), followed by the Trail Ridge Road area (62%). ƒSummer and Fall respondents visited somewhat more RMNP locations (average 2.2 and 2.5 locations) than Winter and Spring respondents (average 1.4 and 1.8 locations). ƒVisitors spending the night in EP visited somewhat more RMNP locations (average 2.4) than day visitors spending the night elsewhere (1.8) and day trippers from home (1.6). 5454 SPECIAL EVENT PARTICIPATION ƒOverall, 18% of respondents reported attending a special event. ƒThe results were influenced by the timing & locations of the surveys, however no single festival or special event was overly represented (0% – 3% of respondents per event). Which of the following special events, if any, did you attend while in Estes Park? (Check all that apply) 46 5555 SPECIAL EVENT PARTICIPATION Which of the following special events, if any, did you attend while in Estes Park? (Check all that apply) ƒDay trippers from home were more likely to attend a special event (25%) than overnight visitors (19%) and day visitors spending the night elsewhere (9%). ƒEvent attendance was highest in Fall (30%), followed by Summer (19%), Winter (19%) and Spring (1%), although the results were influenced by the timing and location of surveys. 5656 EXPENDITURES: PER PARTY PER TRIP During your time in the Estes Valley (i.e. downtown Estes Park plus the region about 7-10 miles around downtown), approximately how much did you and your party (i.e. the group with whom you shared expenses) spend on the following items? AVERAGE PER PARTY PER TRIP ƒThe average expenditure per party per trip was $727, with the highest spending in Summer ($843), followed by Spring ($628), Fall ($603), and Winter ($343). ƒBy visitor type, spending was highest among overnight visitors to Estes Park ($1,334), followed distantly by day visitors spending the night elsewhere ($289) and day trippers from home ($168). ƒThe greatest expenditures were for lodging ($297), followed by restaurants ($161), shopping ($151), and various other items. 5757 EXPENDITURES: PER PERSON PER TRIP During your time in the Estes Valley (i.e. downtown Estes Park plus the region about 7-10 miles around downtown), approximately how much did you and your party (i.e. the group with whom you shared expenses) spend on the following items? AVERAGE PER PERSON PER TRIP ƒOverall average expenditure per person per trip was $249, with higher spending in Summer ($274) than Fall ($242), Spring ($212), and Winter ($151). ƒGreatest spending was for lodging ($106), followed by restaurants ($55), and shopping ($48).47 5858 EXPENDITURES: PER PERSON PER DAY During your time in the Estes Valley (i. e. downtown Estes Park plus the region about 7-10 miles around downtown), approximately how much did you and your party (i.e. the group with whom you shared expenses) spend on the following items? AVERAGE PER PERSON PER DAY ƒOverall average expenditure per person per day was $103. By visitor type, spending was significantly higher among overnight visitors to EP ($139) than day visitors ($85 - $65), due largely to differences in spending on lodging (and, to a lesser degree, restaurants). ƒGreatest spending was for lodging ($31), followed by shopping ($25) and restaurants ($25). 5959 PREVIOUS VISITATION ƒMost respondents were repeat visitors to Estes Park (68%), while 32% were first-timers. ƒSpring visitors were more likely to be first-timers (45%), followed by visitors in Fall (32%), Summer (29%) and Winter (24%). Winter had the greatest share of frequent visitors (10+ previous visits in past 5 years), at 27% vs. 13%-15% in other seasons. ƒDay visitors spending the night elsewhere were more likely to be first-time visitors to EP (50%) than overnight visitors (34%) or day trippers from home (11%). 6060 PREVIOUS VISITATION SEASON ƒAmong those who visited EP in the past five years, the greatest share had previously visited in summer (77%), followed by fall (64%), spring (44%), and winter (27%). ƒAmong repeat visitors, winter visitors were most likely to have visited in multiple seasons (average 2.8 of the 4 seasons), followed by visitors in Spring (average 2.4 seasons), Fall (2.2 seasons), and Summer (2.0 seasons). ƒAmong repeat visitors, day trippers from home were most likely to have visited in multiple seasons (average 2.6 seasons), followed by overnight visitors (1.9 seasons) & day visitors spending the night elsewhere (1.6 seasons).48 61 RATINGS OF EXPERIENCE 6262 RATINGS OF EXPERIENCE ƒRMNP was rated highest (average 9.3), followed by outdoor recreation (9.1), overall visit experience (9.1), EPVC (8.9), and friendliness/helpfulness of the people (8.8). ƒRatings were comparatively lowest for festivals/special events (7.2), parking in EP (7.5), dining (7.8) and shopping (7.9). 6363 RATINGS OF EXPERIENCE BY SEASON ƒWinter visitors gave lower ratings than visitors in other seasons for RMNP (winter ratings: 6.2 during federal government shutdown, 8.4 at other times; vs. 9.2-9.5 in other seasons). Winter ratings were also comparatively low for outdoor recreation and variety of things to do. ƒBoth winter and spring were rated comparatively low for overnight lodging, and comparatively high for parking in EP.49 6464 RATINGS OF EXPERIENCE BY VISITOR TYPE ƒDay trippers from home gave comparatively high ratings for value, shopping, dining, and festivals/special events; and comparatively low ratings for overnight lodging. ƒOvernight visitors gave comparatively high ratings for lodging. ƒDay visitors spending the night elsewhere give comparatively low ratings for outdoor recreation and festivals/special events. 6565 LIKELIHOOD TO RECOMMEND ƒThe average likelihood to recommend was highest in Summer (9.4), followed by Fall (9.2), Spring (9.1) and Winter (9.0). ƒAverage likelihood to recommend was higher among day visitors from home (9.5) than overnight visitors (9.2) and day visitors spending the night elsewhere (9.2). 6666 LIKELIHOOD TO RECOMMEND ƒThe net promotor score (the percent of promoters minus the percent of detractors) was 74.6 overall. ƒBy season, the score was highest in Summer (78.5) followed by Fall (70.8), Spring (69.3), and Winter (65.1). ƒBy visitor type, day trippers from home had the highest score (81.8), followed by day visitors spending the night elsewhere (73.5) and overnight visitors (71.3). (Results derived from likelihood to recommend EP, per previous slide.) 50 6767 LIKELIHOOD TO RETURN – 12 MONTHS ƒOverall, 49% of respondents are highly likely to return within the next 12 months (% 9 or 10). ƒLikelihood to return within the next 12 months was highest in Winter (64% responding 9 or 10), followed by Summer (50%), Spring (47%), and Fall (41%). ƒDay visitors from home are significantly more likely than other visitor types to be highly likely to return within 12 months (80% vs 35% - 37% responding 9 or 10). 6868 LIKELIHOOD TO RETURN –3 YEARS ƒLikelihood to return within the next 3 years is significantly higher (than likelihood to return in 12 months), with 70% of respondents indicating a 9 or 10. ƒLikelihood to return within the next 3 years was highest in Winter (78% responding 9 or 10), followed by Summer (71%), Spring (71%), and Fall (64%). ƒDay visitors from home are significantly more likely than other visitor types to be highly likely to return within 3 years (92% vs 59% for overnight visitors and 66% for day visitors staying overnight elsewhere). 6969 LIKE BEST Source: Post-Trip Survey ƒRMNP, scenery/beauty/views, town/downtown, mountains, shopping, hiking/walking, wildlife/elk, friendly people, and weather were among the items cited most often. Overall, what aspects of your visit to Estes Park did you like best? Most-mentioned words (calculation: total # times word mentioned/total # of comments) (767 comments received) Words mentioned at least three times, in word cloud view: S iS 51 7070 Source: Post-Trip Survey ƒResponses were largely very positive. ƒTop words included beauty (22%), quaint (15%), friendly (13%), and fun (11%). What word(s) or phrase(s) would you use to describe downtown Estes Park to a friend or family member? Most-mentioned words (calculation: total # times word mentioned/total # of comments) (253 comments received) HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE DOWNTOWN EP TO FRIEND /FAMILY ? Words mentioned at least three times, in word cloud view: Source: Post-Trip Survey 7171 Source: Post-Trip Survey ƒRMNP and beauty/scenery/views are most cited in all four seasons, along. Also the mountain location, wildlife, downtown character, ease of access to home & RMNP, shops/shopping, variety of activities, friendly people, Stanley Hotel, hiking, weather, etc. In your opinion, what are the most distinctive aspects of Estes Park as a travel destination? Most-mentioned words (calculation: total # times word mentioned/total # of comments) (714 comments received) DISTINCTIVE ASPECTS OF ESTES PARK Words mentioned at least three times, in word cloud view: Source: Post-Trippp Surveyyy 7272 Source: Post-Trip Survey ƒOver half of respondents said they had no negative experiences or no suggestions (59%). ƒAmong the remainder, top concerns (particularly at busier times) included parking / traffic / crowding / shuttles (in EP and RMNP). Some cited shopping / dining / lodging issues (quality / variety / cost / limited hours), altitude/altitude sickness, unfriendly or unhelpful staff, and closure of RMNP in winter due to gov’t shutdown. Did you have any negative experiences in EP, or do you have any suggestions for improving the EP experience? Most-mentioned words (calculation: total # times word mentioned/total # of comments) (650 comments received) NEGATIVE EXPERIENCES/SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT Words mentioned at least three times, in word cloud view: SPtTi S 52 7373 Source: Post-Trip Survey ƒCommon themes: more/better shops & dining; more events/entertainment/activities; more nighttime activities; more kids’ activities; more/improved shuttles/Uber/Lyft/taxis; less traffic/congestion/people; upgraded hotels; less expensive dining & lodging; more bike & walking trails; longer service hours; more local items/unique offerings; etc. ƒMany said “nothing” – avoid excessive growth & change, love it as is, not lacking in amenities, retain town character. What community features/amenities could Estes Park add to make you excited to come back? Most-mentioned words (calculation: total # times word mentioned/total # of comments) (541 comments received) FEATURES/AMENITIES TO ADD Words mentioned at least three times, in word cloud view: S PtTi S 74 GENERAL TRAVEL PATTERNS & PREFERENCES 7575 OTHER MOUNTAIN DESTINATIONS ƒPikes Peak/Colorado Springs was the most cited past destination (30%), followed by Breckenridge (24%), other parts of Summit County (20%), and Steamboat (17%). ƒDay trippers from home were more likely to have visited Colorado mountain destinations than the other two visitor segments. What other mountain destinations, if any, have you visited for a leisure/vacation trip in the past three summers (May-Dec surveys) / winters (Jan-Apr surveys)? 53 7676 VARIETY-SEEKING BEHAVIOR ƒMost respondents indicate a desire for variety, with 46% “rotating between a few different destinations” for their vacations, and 41% “visiting new and different destinations all the time.” ƒA comparatively small 12% visit the same destination year after year. Season wording: Winter trips (on Dec-Apr surveys); summer trips (on May-Nov surveys). 7777 QUALITY OF EXPERIENCE VS. PRICE ƒThe majority of respondents (69%) seek an even balance between price and the quality of experience. ƒ11% prioritize price (rate 1 or 2), while 19% prioritize quality of experience (rate 4 or 5). 78 SUMMARY 54 79 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS •Visitation volume •Quarterly: Roughly 56% Summer, 25% Fall, 5% Winter, 14% Spring (varies by measure) •Daily: Roughly 60% weekday (M-F), 40% weekend (Sa-Su) (per traffic & EPVC counts) •Visitor type •45% overnight staying within 10 miles of Estes Park •28% day visitor to EP, spending night elsewhere •27% day visitor from home •Geographic origin •Importance of Colo. market: overall (40%), as a share of overnight visitors (25%), & as a share of day visitors (52%) •Strength in Midwest (25%) and South (20%). 80 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS •Demographics •Age: Broad age distribution, with median age of 49 •HH status: Most are households with no kids at home (36%) or couples with kids at home (34%). Also 18% empty nesters, 13% singles without kids. •Travel party : 75% travel with partner, 34% with children, 22% w/ other relatives, 15% w/ friends. Avg 3.2 people/party. •Household income:Median $100K. Broad distribution between $25-$199K (85%). •Trip decision factors & preferences •Dominant trip purpose is vacation / leisure / recreation (74%), followed by VFR (10%). •Factors in decision to visit: Led by scenic beauty (9.3 out of 10), a relaxing mountain getaway (8.3), being close to nature (8.3), RMNP (8.2), wildlife viewing (7.7), adventure/discovery/exploration (7.7). •Multiple destination trips: 40% of visitors were on a multiple destination trip, which primarily involved visits to Front Range cities. •Consideration of other destinations: 33% of visitors considered other destinations before deciding on EP, primarily cities/destinations along the Front Range between Colo Spgs & Ft Collins. •In general, when planning travel, most visitors seek an even balance between price & quality (69%). Most also prefer variety in destinations (88%) rather than always returning to the same area (12%). 81 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS •Information sources •Top sources (before arrival in EP): Previous visits to EP (48%), personal recommendations/word of mouth (41%), RMNP info/website (32%), VisitEstesPark.com (16%). •Trip characteristics •Lodging type in EP: 62% commercial lodging, 17% rent-by-owner lodging, 25% other. •Length of stay in EP (overnight): Avg. 4.5 nights. 11% one night, 27% 2 nights, 26% 3 nights, 36% 4+ nights. •Use of flights (out of state/foreign): 48% flew to Denver, 3% flew to other airport, 49% drove/ground. •Activities in EP: Led by RMNP (74%), walking (66%), scenic drive (65%), dining out (61%), wildlife viewing (59%), shopping (55%), hiking (45%). •Spend in EP: Average $103/ person / day. ($139 for overnight, $85 for day visitors staying overnight outside EP area, $65 for day trippers from home.) •Previous visitation of EP: Most respondents were repeat visitors to Estes Park (68%), including 89% of day trippers from home, 66% of overnight visitors, and 50% of day visitors spending the night elsewhere. 55 82 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS •Ratings of Experience •Highest ratings for RMNP (9.3 out of 10), outdoor recreation (9.1), overall visit experience (9.1), Estes Park Visitor Center (8.9), and friendliness/helpfulness of people (8.8). •Lowest ratings for festivals and special events (7.2), parking (7.5), dining (7.8), and shopping (7.9). •The net promotor score was 75%. •Items liked best: RMNP, scenery/beauty/views, town, mtns, hiking, wildlife, etc. •Most distinctive aspects of EP: RMNP and views/scenery/ beauty are most cited. Also, mountain location, wildlife downtown character, ease of access from home and to RMNP, shopping, variety of activities, friendly people, Stanley Hotel, hiking, weather, etc. •How would you describe downtown EP to a friend? Top words: beautiful, quaint, friendly, fun. •Did you have any negative experiences in EP?Most visitors said they had no negative experiences. Among the remainder, top negatives included parking, traffic, & crowds. •Suggestions for improvement & features/amenities that would encourage you to come back: Leading suggestions for improvement included more/better shops & dining; more events & activities; more/improved shuttle service; upgraded hotels; less expensive dining & lodging; more biking & walking trails; avoid excessive growth & change / retain town character. 83 NOTABLE DIFFERENCES BY VISITOR TYPE 84 •Visitor characteristics ƒTravel party : Overnight visitors to EP were more likely to travel with a spouse/partner (83%) than day visitors staying elsewhere (75%) and day trippers from home (63%). Conversely, day visitors from home and day visitors spending the night elsewhere were more likely to travel with “other family” (27-28%; i.e. relatives other than spouse and kids) than overnight visitors staying in EP (17%). Day visitors from home were comparatively likely to travel with friends (23%, vs. 12-13% for other two segments) and grandchildren (12%, vs. 3-5%). ƒHousehold status: Visitors on day trip from home were more likely than other visitor segments to be singles with no children (20% vs. 10-12%), and less likely to be empty nesters (12% vs. 18%-23%). ƒAge: Overnight visitors to EP tended to be slightly older (median age 51) than in-state day visitors (median 44) and out-of-state day visitors (median 48). ƒHousehold income: Overnight visitors (median $108,000) and day visitors spending the night elsewhere (median $105,000) tended to be somewhat more affluent than day trippers from home (median $88,000). ƒPrevious visitation of EP: Day visitors spending the night elsewhere were more likely to be first-time visitors to EP (50%) than overnight visitors (34%) and day trippers from home (11%). Among repeat visitors, day trippers from home were most likely to have visited in multiple seasons (avg 2.6 seasons), followed by overnight visitors (1.9) & day visitors staying elsewhere (1.6). ƒVisitation of other mountain destinations in past three summers (winters):Day visitors from home had visited an average of 3.0 other destinations –more than overnight visitors to EP (2.1 destinations) and day visitors spending the night elsewhere (1.5 destinations). DIFFERENCES BY VISITOR TYPE 56 85 •Trip Planning & Decision Factors ƒImportance of factors in decision to visit EP: ƒOvernight visitors placed somewhat more importance than other segments on relaxing mountain getaway, outdoor recreation, experience quiet/solitude/uncrowded destination, and enjoy cozy winter experiences. ƒDay visitors spending the night elsewhere placed somewhat more importance than other segments on visiting friends and family in the area. ƒDay visitors from home placed somewhat more importance than other segments on ease of getting to EP, visiting the downtown area, and festival/special event. •Consideration of other destinations for this trip: Day visitors spending the night elsewhere were most likely to consider other destinations in Colorado (40%), followed by visitors spending the night in the area (26%), and day visitors from home (15%). Overnight visitors spending the night in EP were most likely to consider other destinations outside of Colorado (13%, vs. 0-6% for day segments). •Trip decision lead time: Most day visitors from home (84%) and half of day visitors spending the night elsewhere (51%) decided to visit EP two weeks in advance or less, as compared to 20% of overnight visitors. •Information sources: Day visitors from home were more likely to site previous visit (64%) than overnight visitors to EP (47%) and day visitors spending the night elsewhere (33%). By contrast, word of mouth was cited more by day visitors staying elsewhere (57%) than the other two segments (33- 36%). Altogether, overnight visitors to EP tended to use more info sources, both before and after arrival in EP (average 2.4 & 2.4 sources respectively) than day visitors staying elsewhere (2.0 / 1.5 sources) and day visitors from home (1.7 / 1.0 sources). DIFFERENCES BY VISITOR TYPE 86 •Trip Characteristics •Flew as part of travel? (out of state/international visitors):Among out of state/international guests, visitors spending the night in the EP area were less likely to fly (42%) than day visitors spending the night elsewhere (63%). •Multiple destination trips: Day visitors to EP spending the night elsewhere were much more likely to be on a multi-destination trip (68%) than visitors spending the night in the EP area (37%) and day visitors from home (15%). •Other destinations, for those on a multiple destination trip:Overnight visitors to EP were more likely than day visitors spending the night elsewhere to visit Colorado mountain & out of state destinations; and less likely to visit Front Range cities from Denver to Fort Collins. •Primary destination, for those on a multiple destination trip: Overnight visitors to EP were more likely than day visitors spending the night elsewhere to visit EP/RMNP as their primary destination (66% v. 33%). DIFFERENCES BY VISITOR TYPE 87 •Trip Characteristics (continued) •Activities while in EP: Overnight visitors participated in more activities on average (6.4) than day visitors staying elsewhere (4.4) and day visitors from home (4.6). Overnight visitors to EP were more likely than other segments to visit RMNP, hike, walk, dine out, view wildlife, shop, and participate in numerous other activities. •Special events: Day visitors from home were more likely to attend a special event (25%) than overnight visitors (19%) and day visitors staying elsewhere (9%). Among event attendees, day visitors were more likely to have come to EP specifically for the event (54%) than overnight visitors (32%) and day visitors staying elsewhere (6%). •Places visited in RMNP, and RMNP shuttle use: Among those that visited RMNP, visitors spending the night in EP visited somewhat more RMNP locations (average 2.4) than day visitors spending the night elsewhere (1.8 locations) and day trippers from home (1.6). Additionally, overnight visitors who visited RMNP were more likely to use an RMNP shuttle (26%) than day visitors spending the night elsewhere (13%) and day visitors from home (10%). •Spending in EP: Overnight visitors spent the most on average, while day visitors from home spent the least. Measured on the basis of per person per trip, overnight visitors spent $458, compared to $86 for day visitors spending the night elsewhere, and $65 for day visitors from home. On a per person per day basis, overnight visitors spent $139 while day visitors staying elsewhere spent $85, and day visitors from home spent $65. DIFFERENCES BY VISITOR TYPE 57 88 •Ratings of Experience •Net promoter score: Day visitors from home gave slightly higher net promoter scores (82%) than day visitors staying elsewhere (73%) and overnight visitors to EP (71%). Overnight visitors to EP had the highest share of detractors (responding 0-6) at 9% (vs. 4% - 1% for other visitor types). •Satisfaction: •Day trippers from home gave comparatively high ratings for value, shopping, dining, and festivals/special events; and comparatively low ratings for overnight lodging. •Overnight visitors to EP gave comparatively high ratings for lodging. •Day visitors spending the night elsewhere gave comparatively low ratings for outdoor recreation and festivals/special events. •Likelihood of return to EP in 12 months: Day visitors from home are significantly more likely than other visitor types to be highly likely to return within 12 months (80% vs 35% - 37% responding 9 or 10). •Likelihood of return to EP in 3 years: Day visitors from home are significantly more likely than other visitor types to be highly likely to return within 3 years (92% vs 59% for overnight visitors and 66% for day visitors staying overnight elsewhere). DIFFERENCES BY VISITOR TYPE 89 NOTABLE DIFFERENCES BY SEASON 90 •Demographics •Geographic origin: •The share of Colorado visitors was highest in Winter (49%), followed by Fall (43%), Summer (41%) and Spring (28%). •Visitors from the Midwest were somewhat more prevalent than visitors from the South in Summer and Fall, while the reverse was true in Winter. (Both groups were about equal in Spring.) •Age: The age profile was significantly older in Summer & Fall (median 50 each) than Winter & Spring (median 43 & 41). •Household/family status: The share of couples with no children at home was greatest in Winter (46%) and Fall (44%), followed by Summer (34%) and Spring (29%). The share of households with children at home was highest in Summer (37%), followed by Spring (35%), Winter (29%) and Fall (24%). •Travel party : Visitors are more likely to have traveled with children and grandchildren in Summer than in other seasons. Average party sizes were largest in Summer (3.5), followed by Spring (3.0), Fall (2.8) and Winter (2.6). •Visitor type •The share of visitors spending the night within 10 miles of EP was highest in Summer (50%), followed by Fall (42%), Winter (41%) and Spring (33%). •Day visitors spending the night elsewhere accounted for a somewhat higher share of visitors in Spring (41%) and Winter (32%) than Summer/Fall (23-24%). •Day visitors from home accounted for 21-34% of visitors across seasons. DIFFERENCES BY SEASON 58 91 •Trip Planning & Decision Factors •Importance of factors in decision to visit EP: ƒThe two most important factors overall, scenic beauty & relaxing mountain getaway, were highly important in all four seasons. ƒWildlife viewing was somewhat more important in Fall (8.4) than other seasons (7.1 –7.6). ƒOutdoor recreation was somewhat more important in Summer/Fall (7.5) than Winter/Spring (6.4 – 6.8). ƒEnjoy cozy winter experiences was more important in Winter (6.1) than Spring (3.9). ƒBeing close to nature & experience adventure / discovery / exploration were somewhat more important in Spring than Winter (these were probed in only those two seasons). •Consideration of other destinations for this trip: Spring visitors were most likely to consider other destinations (40%), followed by visitors in Summer (35%), Fall (26%) and Winter (23%). •Information sources once in EP: Visitors in fall were heavier consumers of information sources in EP (average of 2.1 sources) than visitors in other seasons (1.5 – 1.7 sources). RMNP information/website was a significantly less important source of information in winter than other seasons (both before & after arrival in EP). •Trip decision lead time: Just 25% of winter visitors decided to visit a month or more in advance, less than visitors in other seasons (44 – 47%), an indicator of shorter decision lead times in winter. DIFFERENCES BY SEASON 92 •Trip Characteristics •Weekday/weekend mix: Based on inferences from traffic counts, the share of visitation occurring on weekends (Sa/Su) was highest in Winter (59%), followed by Fall (47%), Spring (46%), and Summer (37%). Similarly, at the EPVC, the share of weekend visitors was highest in Winter (47%), followed by Fall (45%), Spring (41%), and Summer (33%). •(Out of state/international visitors) Flew as part of travel?Among out of state/ international guests, Winter visitors were most likely to fly (73%), followed by visitors in Spring (69%), Fall (53%) and Summer (41%). •Length of stay in EP (overnight visitors only): Summer and Fall visitors stayed longer on average (4.8 and 4.7 nights) than Spring (3.4 nights) and Winter (2.7 nights) visitors. •Stays in other locations (overnight visitors to EP only): Visitors staying overnight in EP were most likely to also spend one or more nights outside of EP as part of their trip in Summer (63%), followed by Spring (53%), Fall (51%) and Winter (21%). •Multiple destination trips: The share of visitors on a multiple destination trip was highest in Spring (46%), followed by Fall (41%), Summer (38%) and Winter (30%). DIFFERENCES BY SEASON 93 •Trip Characteristics (continued) •Activities while in EP: Visitors in Fall tended to participate in the greatest variety of activities (average 6.0 activities), followed by visitors in Summer (5.5 activities), Spring (4.8), and Winter (4.3). •Event attendance: Event attendance was highest in Fall (30%), followed by Summer (19%), Winter (19%) and Spring (1%), although the results were influenced by the timing and location of surveys. •Places visited in RMNP: Among those who visited RMNP, Fall visitors tended to visit the most RMNP locations (average 2.5 locations), followed by visitors in Fall (2.2), Spring (1.8) and Winter (1.4). •Spending in EP: Average spend per person per trip was highest in summer ($274), followed by Fall ($242), Spring ($212) and Winter ($151). Average spend per person per day was somewhat higher in Summer ($107) and Spring ($106) than Fall ($92) and Winter ($85). •Repeat visitation of EP: Winter visitors were somewhat more likely to be repeat visitors to EP (76%) than visitors in Summer (72%), Fall (68%) and Spring (55%). Among repeat visitors, winter visitors were most likely to have visited in multiple seasons (average 2.8 of the 4 seasons), followed by visitors in Spring (average 2.4 seasons), Fall (2.2 seasons), and Summer (2.0 seasons). DIFFERENCES BY SEASON 59 94 •Ratings of Experience •Net promoter score: Summer visitors gave the highest net promoter scores (79%), followed by visitors in Fall (71%), Spring (69%), and Winter (65%). Winter had the highest share of detractors (responding 0-6) at 11% (vs. 4% -8% in other seasons). •Satisfaction: •Winter visitors gave lower ratings than visitors in other seasons for RMNP (winter ratings: 6.2 during federal government shutdown, 8.4 at other times; vs. 9.2-9.5 in other seasons). Winter ratings were also comparatively low for outdoor recreation and variety of things to do. •Both winter and spring were rated comparatively low for overnight lodging, and comparatively high for parking in EP. •Likelihood of return to Estes Park: Notwithstanding their lower NPS scores, and consistent with their high rates of previous visitation, Winter visitors indicated the highest likelihood to return in 12 months (avg 8.4 out of 10), followed by visitors in Summer (7.0) and Fall/Spring (6.8 each). Similarly, Winter visitors indicated the greatest likelihood of return within 3 years (average 9.2), followed by visitors in Summer (8.7) and Fall/Spring (8.4 each). DIFFERENCES BY SEASON 95 Photos: Visit Estes Park 2018/19 12 MONTH VISITOR SURVEY RESULTS OCTOBER 4, 2019 THANK YOU! PREPARED FOR VISIT ESTES PARK 60                     November 26, 2019  Downtown Estes Loop Quarterly Update  Thumb Open Space Proposal  Broadband Update  Fish Hatchery Property Discussion December 10, 2019  CANCELLED December 24, 2019  CANCELLED January 14, 2020  Facilities Master Plan  Transit Philosophy Discussion (Including Brown Route) Items Approved – Unscheduled:  Discussion with County Assessor regarding Assessment of Vacation Rentals  Future of Human Resources Management – HR Strategic Plan  Distributed Energy Discussion  ADUs and Sue Ballou, Partnership for Age Friendly Communities  Follow Up Discussion of Building Maintenance Code  Reverse Decriminalization of Municipal Code Items for Town Board Consideration:  Vacation Home Regulations in PUDs – January 28, 2020 Future Town Board Study Session Agenda Items November 12, 2019 29 61       30 62