Development Counsellors International 461 Park Avenue South, New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 725-0707 Fax: (212) 725-2254 E-mail: [email protected]/Website: www.aboutdci.com
A VIEW FROM CORPORATE AMERICA
THIRD EDITION
FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2002
A View from Corporate America Winning Strategies in the Economic Development Marketing Game
WINNING STRATEGIES IN THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MARKETING GAME
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables.………………………………………………….………….. ii
Executive Summary ……………………………..…………………..…..... 1
I. Introduction and Methodology ……………………………………. 3
II. Comparative Rating of Information Sources Influencing Perceptions of Business Climates ……………………………….… 4
III. Comparative Rating of Marketing Techniques ……. ……………… 8
IV. The Internet’s Role In Corporate Site Selection ……….………….. 10
V. Regional Ranking of Business Climates ……..……………………. 13
VI. Favorability Rating of U.S. States ..………………………….…… 15
VII. Favorability Perceptions of Business Climate in Europe………….. 19
VIII. Perceptions of Economic Development Organizations: A Comparative View ………….………………………………….. 22
IX. Facility Most Likely to Be Involved in the Next Site Decision …………….………………………………….. 24
X. Demographic Profile of Respondents ……………………………. 26
XI. A Word About DCI…………..…..……………………………….. 27
Appendix A Questionnaire/Cover Letter
Appendix B Summary of U.S. Business Climate Favorability
Appendix C Summary of European Business Climate Favorability
Appendix D Open-ended Responses
i
A View from Corporate America Winning Strategies in the Economic Development Marketing Game
LIST OF TABLES Page 2002 Survey
Table 1: LEADING INFORMATION SOURCES ON BUSINESS CLIMATE 5
Table 2: MOST EFFECTIVE MARKETING TECHNIQUES 8
Table 3: MOST USEFUL FEATURES OF AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION’S WEBSITE 12
Table 4: PERCEIVED BUSINESS CLIMATES OF U.S. REGIONS 13
Table 5: OVERALL IMPRESSIONS OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATIONS 22
Table 6: NEXT CHOICE FOR CORPORATE FACILITY CHANGE 24
2002 v. 1999 v. 1996 Comparison
Table A: COMPARATIVE INFORMATION SOURCES 6
Table B: COMPARATIVE MARKETING TECHNIQUES 9
Table C: MOST FAVORABLE BUSINESS CLIMATE 16
Table D: LEAST FAVORABLE BUSINESS CLIMATE 18
Table E: MOST FAVORABLE EUROPEAN BUSINESS CLIMATE 20
Table F: LEAST FAVORABLE EUROPEAN BUSINESS CLIMATE 21
Table G: COMPARATIVE CHOICES FOR FACILITY CHANGES 25
Charts
Chart 1: USE OF THE INTERNET DURING SITE LOCATION SEARCHES 10
Chart 2: LIKELIHOOD THAT AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION’S WEBSITE WOULD BE VISITED DURING NEXT SITE SEARCH 10
ii
A View from Corporate America Winning Strategies in the Economic Development Marketing Game
Chart 3: PERCEIVED BUSINESS CLIMATE COMPARISON 14
Chart 4: RATING COMPARISON: CORPORATE IMPRESSIONS OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATIONS 23
iii
A View from Corporate America Winning Strategies in the Economic Development Marketing Game
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Development Counsellors International (DCI) conducted a third survey of corporate executives with site location responsibilities to measure trends in the most effective strategies and techniques in economic development marketing. The seminal report “Winning Strategies in the Economic Development Marketing Game” was presented in 1996, and was based on the responses of 173 senior executives (chief executive officers, presidents, vice presidents and corporate real estate executives) from U.S. companies. A follow-up report, “Prospects for the New Millennium: Winning Strategies in the Economic Development Marketing Game” was completed in 1999 and included business leaders from the United States and Europe.
In the current study, “A View from Corporate America: Winning Strategies in the Economic Development Marketing Game,” only U.S. executives are included. The following summary is based on the aggregate responses of 287 business leaders.
As in the previous study, the respondents represent senior level executives from companies with over $100 million in annual gross revenue.
Key findings:
1. For the first time, “articles in newspapers & magazines” surpassed “dialogue with industry peers,” as the leading source of information influencing the executives’ perceptions of a state or region’s business climate. “Business travel” was selected as the third most influential source of information.
2. “Planned visits to corporate executives,” “public relations/ publicity,” and “hosting special events” received the highest ratings among all economic development marketing tools.
3. Forty percent of respondents indicated a strong likelihood that they would use an economic development organization’s website in their next site location search. The executives named “information on available incentives,” “demographic information” and “directory of available buildings & sites” as the most useful features of an economic development organization’s website.
4. The South continued to be rated as the region with the most favorable business climate in the United States. The Pacific region experienced a significant drop in the business climate rating.
5. When asked to list the most favorable business climates among the 50 states, Texas, North Carolina and South Carolina received the highest tally (in order of selection).
1 A View from Corporate America Winning Strategies in the Economic Development Marketing Game
6. The least favorable rating of business climates among the U.S. states was given to California, New York, and Massachusetts.
7. The United Kingdom was perceived as having the most favorable business climate among 17 countries in Western Europe, followed by Ireland and Germany.
8. Overall, France was considered to have the least favorable business climate in Europe, followed by Germany (as already noted, also selected among the best business climates in Europe) and Italy.
9. Sixty-three percent of the respondents indicated having worked with economic development organizations. These organizations were viewed favorably by the majority of respondents.
10. “Information/assistance in obtaining financial/tax incentives” was identified as the most important service provided by economic development groups. This was followed by “general information about the community,” “information/assistance with workforce/training resources,” and “contact/coordination with local authorities/ elimination of “red tape.”
11. When asked to identify the most likely candidate for their company’s next move or expansion, “manufacturing/production plant,” was the most common response. This was followed by “corporate, division or regional headquarters,” “distribution center” and “regional sales office or service center.” When compared with the 1999 survey, the current findings reflect a strong shift away from regional sales or service facilities.
2 A View from Corporate America Winning Strategies in the Economic Development Marketing Game
I
INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY
In 1996 and then subsequently in 1999, Development Counsellors International (DCI) conducted surveys of corporate executives to determine the “customer’s perspective” on the most effective strategies and techniques in economic development marketing. In 2002, DCI directed a follow-up survey to determine changes in the perceptions of corporate leaders in the United States.
A random selection of 2091 companies with annual revenues of $100+ million was selected. The survey targeted executives with direct site selection responsibilities and was heavily weighted toward the following business titles: “Chief Executive Officer,” “President,” “Chief Financial Officer,” and “Vice President.” In addition, 158 U.S.-based site selection consultants were included in the survey sample.
Questionnaires were accompanied by a personalized letter from DCI’s President, Andrew Levine, and were mailed to the survey audience.
Completed questionnaires were returned to DCI for processing. A total of 287 completed surveys were received. All surveys were edited for completeness and the responses to open- ended questions were coded. A copy of the questionnaire and cover letter can be found in Appendix A.
Every sample survey is subject to sample error, that is, the amount the actual data would be expected to vary from results that would be obtained if the entire population, as defined, were interviewed. The maximum expected sampling error for this study of 287 corporate executives is ±5.5% at a 95% confidence level. That is, if 100 samples were drawn from the same population of businesses, 95 times out of 100, the responses would vary 5.5 percentage points from what would normally be obtained if a complete census of the same businesses were conducted.
It is important to note this is a study of perceptions. A perception is an attitude, belief or impression and not necessarily a reflection of reality. Business executives have certain identifiable opinions and beliefs about doing business in the United States and Europe. Some of these perceptions may be accurate and some may be genuine misperceptions.
3 A View from Corporate America Winning Strategies in the Economic Development Marketing Game
II
COMPARATIVE RATING OF INFORMATION SOURCES INFLUENCING PERCEPTIONS OF BUSINESS CLIMATES
In all three studies, the respondents were asked to select the “three leading sources of information” influencing their perceptions of a state or region’s business climate. The 1996 study had 12 possible sources – articles in newspapers and magazines, business travel, dialogue with industry peers, direct mail, meetings with economic development groups, national surveys, personal travel, print advertising, TV/radio advertising, TV/radio newscasts/shows, word of mouth and other. In the 1999 and the current studies, on-line sources was added to this list.
In the recent study, the three leading sources of information overall were identified as:
• Articles in newspapers & magazines 62% • Dialogue with industry peers 56% • Business travel 47%
In fourth place, “word of mouth” follows at a distant 29%. “National surveys” and “Meetings with economic development groups” follow with 23% and 21%, respectively. The remaining sources listed were identified by 20% or less of the respondents.
The following table illustrates the findings of the 2002 survey.
4 A View from Corporate America Winning Strategies in the Economic Development Marketing Game
Table 1: LEADING INFORMATION SOURCES ON BUSINESS CLIMATE (2002 Survey)
Sources Respondents Change since 1999 Articles in newspapers & magazines 62%
Dialogue with industry peers 56%
Business travel 47%
Word of mouth 29%
National surveys 23%
Meeting w/ economic development orgs. 21%
TV/Radio newscasts/shows 14%
Personal travel 14%
Other 14%
On-line sources 9%
Print advertising 4%
Direct mail 2%
TV/Radio advertising 0%
5 A View from Corporate America Winning Strategies in the Economic Development Marketing Game
These results when compared to the 1996 and 1999 responses show significant changes. As the table below demonstrates, while U.S. corporate executives remain steadfast in the three leading sources information influencing their perceptions of an area’s business climate, the relative importance of these sources has shifted. “Articles in newspapers in magazines” has moved into first place for the first time.
Table A: COMPARATIVE INFORMATION SOURCES (20002 v. 1999 v. 1996 Surveys)
Sources 2002 1999 1996 Articles in newspapers & 62% 61% 60% magazines Dialogue with industry 56% 71% 68% peers Business travel 47% 45% 52%
Word of mouth 29% 21% 24%
National surveys 23% 31% 34%
Meeting w/ economic 21% 27% 24% development orgs. TV/Radio 14% 7% 4% newscasts/shows Personal travel 14% 8% 21%
Other 14% 8% 15%
On-line sources 9% 9% -
Print advertising 4% 3% 4%
Direct mail 2% 3% 1%
TV/Radio advertising 0% 1% 0%
6 A View from Corporate America Winning Strategies in the Economic Development Marketing Game
It is important to note that although “articles in newspapers and magazines” moved into first place, the percentage of executives to choose this source remained stable. “Dialogue with industry peers,” in the number 2 spot, dropped significantly from its high point at 71% in 1999 to only 56% in 2002. “National surveys” also dropped significantly, from a high of 34% in 1996 to a 23% rating. “On-line sources” which was expected to gain in importance, instead garnered the same percentage of responses in 2002 as in 1999, 9%.
7 A View from Corporate America Winning Strategies in the Economic Development Marketing Game
III
COMPARATIVE RATING OF MARKETING TECHNIQUES
The respondents were asked to rate the effectiveness of eight marketing techniques used as a means of reaching corporate leaders considering a new site location. These techniques, frequently used in economic development marketing, were rated on a 1 to 5 scale, where 1 equals “poor” and 5 equals “excellent.”
When combining the percentage of responses which were either a “4” or a “5”, “planned visits to corporate executives” received 53%. This technique also received the highest rating in the 1996 and 1999 studies. In the 2002 study, the ratings were as follows:
TABLE 2: MOST EFFECTIVE MARKETING TECHNIQUES (% Rating 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale) (2002 Survey)
Technique Percentage Change since 1999 Planned visits to corporate executives 53%
Public relations/publicity 40%
Hosting special events 37%
Internet/Web site 34%
Direct mail 33%
Trade shows 32%
Advertising 21%
Telemarketing 4%
Once again, U.S. data from the 1999 study and the original 1996 data were used to draw comparisons with the most recently collected. The following table illustrates this comparison.
8 A View from Corporate America Winning Strategies in the Economic Development Marketing Game
Table B: COMPARATIVE MARKETING TECHNIQUES (% Rating 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale) (2002 v. 1999 v. 1996 Surveys)
Techniques 2002 1999 1996 Planned visits to 53% 46% 53% corporate executives Public 40% 38% 39% relations/publicity Hosting special events 37% 42% 39%
Internet/web site 34% 37% 18%
Direct mail 33% 25% 25%
Trade shows 32% 45% 39%
Advertising 21% 19% 19%
Telemarketing 4% 6% 7%
It is noteworthy that “public relations/publicity” moved up in the ratings, returning to the number 2 spot it held in 1996. “Internet/website” moved from the number 5 spot to number 4, though with a slightly smaller percentage than it had in 1999 (34% v. 37%). “Trade shows” lost ground since our last study, losing 13 percentage points and falling to sixth place.
9 A View from Corporate America Winning Strategies in the Economic Development Marketing Game
IV
THE INTERNET’S ROLE IN CORPORATE SITE SELECTION
The respondents were asked how often the Internet was used as a source for information in their last site search. A scale of 1-5, where 1 equals “Not at all” and 5 equals “Often,” was used. A lower than expected, twenty-two percent indicated either “4” or “5” in response to this question.
The breakdown of all responses follows.
Chart 1: USE OF THE INTERNET DURING SITE LOCATION SEARCHES
50% 39% 40% Not at all "1"
30% "2" 21% 18% "3" 20% 12% "4" 10% 10% Often "5"
0%
Respondents were also asked the likelihood of visiting an economic development organization’s website during their next site location search. Thirty-nine percent answered “4” or “5”, on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 equals “low” and 5 equals “high.” The following chart summarizes all responses.
Chart 2: LIKELIHOOD THAT AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION’S WEBSITE WOULD BE VISITED DURING NEXT SITE SEARCH
50%
40% Low "1"
30% "2" 23% 23% 19% 20% "3" 20% 15% "4" 10% High "5"
0%
10 A View from Corporate America Winning Strategies in the Economic Development Marketing Game
Respondents were presented with a list of twelve features that are commonly included in the design of an economic development organization’s website:
• directory of available buildings & sites, • list of leading local employers, • demographic information (e.g. population size, average income, age distribution), • information on local schools (including colleges and universities), • information on available incentives, • news section that describes current developments, • testimonials from local companies, • photos/maps of the community, • information on quality of life (e.g. residential neighborhoods/ recreation options), • information about the community’s target industries, • current comparisons to competitor locations (e.g. cost comparisons) and • website sitemap.
Survey participants were asked to select the features that are most important to the usefulness of the website.
The top three responses were:
• Information on available incentives 78% • Demographic information 75% • Directory of available buildings & sites 61%
All responses are presented on the following page.
11 A View from Corporate America Winning Strategies in the Economic Development Marketing Game
TABLE 3: MOST USEFUL FEATURES OF AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION’S WEBSITE (% of respondents who selected each feature) (2002 Survey)
Feature 2002 Information on available incentives 78%
Demographic information 75%
Directory of available buildings & 61% sites Current comparisons to competitor 45% locations List of leading local employers 44%
Information on the community’s target 30% industries Information on quality of life 28%
Information on local schools 25%
Photos/maps of the community 21%
News sections that describes current 17% developments Testimonials from local companies 16%
Website sitemap 9%
These questions were not asked in previous surveys, therefore comparative data is not available.
12 A View from Corporate America Winning Strategies in the Economic Development Marketing Game
V
REGIONAL RANKING OF BUSINESS CLIMATES
The survey once again included an opportunity for the respondents to rate regional business climates in the United States. A map of the U.S. (see sample survey in Appendix A) divided the country into six regions – Northeast, Midwest, Mountain West, Pacific, Plains and South.
Using a 1 to 5 scale (1 equals “poor;” 5 equals “excellent,”) the respondents were asked to rate their opinions of the business climate of each region. The following table provides the responses for the participants of this survey. The number in parentheses after each percent indicates the rank order of the region.
Table 4: PERCEIVED BUSINESS CLIMATES OF U.S. REGIONS (% Rating 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale) (2002 Survey)
Business Climates Aggregate South 71% (1)
Midwest 52% (2)
Plains 37% (3)
Mountain West 33% (4)
Pacific 32% (5)
Northeast 27% (6)
While the South and Midwest remain in the top two spots overall, the Plains region moved into third in the 2002 study. The Mountain West region moved up in the rankings, while the Pacific region fell to fifth place. The Northeast retained its sixth place position.
The chart on the following page shows changes over time.
13 A View from Corporate America Winning Strategies in the Economic Development Marketing Game
Chart 3: PERCEIVED BUSINESS CLIMATE COMPARISON (% Rating 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale) (2002 v. 1999 v. 1996 Surveys)
90% 79% 2002 77% 80% 71% 1999 70% 56% 60% 52% 49% 51% 48% 46% 1996 50% 44% 45% 37% 39% 40% 40% 33% 32% 27% 30% 20% 20% 10% 0% SOUTH MIDWEST PLAINS MT.WEST PACIFIC NORTHEAST
U.S. executives continued to rank the South and the Midwest favorably with these two regions remaining in the first and second places respectively over the course of the six years since 1996. Corporate leaders in this study continue to have strong impressions of these regions, particularly in the South, as a good place to do business.
It is also worth noting the fall in the Pacific region’s rating. After gaining 12 percentage points between 1996 and 1999, it lost 19 percentage points in 2002.
The chart above also reveals a slight downward movement in perceptions of every region’s business climate. No region scored higher in 2002 than in 1999 and only two, the Northeast and the Midwest scored higher in 2002 than in 1996. This may be attributed to current uncertainties about the U.S. economy as a whole.
14 A View from Corporate America Winning Strategies in the Economic Development Marketing Game
VI
FAVORABILITY RATINGS OF U.S. STATES
Most Favorable Rating
When asked to list the states that are perceived as having the most favorable and least favorable business climates among the 50 states, the corporate respondents’ answers varied. Overall, Texas was mentioned as having the most favorable business climate, followed by North Carolina and South Carolina. Florida and Georgia rounded out the top five. The percentage rating was:
1. Texas 25% 2. North Carolina 20% 3. South Carolina 18% 4. Florida 18% 5. Georgia 15%
When compared to the 1999 survey, California is the only state to be dropped from the top 5. The table on the following page shows the comparisons of the 2002 data with 1999 and 1996.
15 A View from Corporate America Winning Strategies in the Economic Development Marketing Game
Table C: MOST FAVORABLE BUSINESS CLIMATE (2002 v. 1999 v. 1996 Surveys)
2002 1999 1996 Texas (25%) Texas (30%) North Carolina (33%)
North Carolina (20%) California (22%) Texas (28%)
South Carolina (18%) North Carolina (20%) Georgia (27%)
Florida (18%) Georgia (17%) South Carolina (21%)
Georgia (15%) Florida (14%) Tennessee (20%)
Appendix B shows the number and percentage of respondents for all U.S. states.
16 A View from Corporate America Winning Strategies in the Economic Development Marketing Game
Least Favorable Rating
Negative perceptions of California’s business climate have increased substantially among corporate executives. While in 1999, about 25% of U.S. executives named California as having a “least favorable” business climate, in 2002, 57% named California in this category. Overall in 2002, California, New York, and Massachusetts were rated the three least favorable business climates.
The states judged to have the least favorable business climates were:
1. California 57% 2. New York 36% 3. Massachusetts 18% 4. New Jersey 15%
The ratings among the remainder of the states were quite diffuse. A fifth place state could not be ascertained accurately.
There is little movement among the ranking of the least favorable states when comparing the 2002 study with the 1999 and 1996 studies. New York and California switch first and second places in 2002. For the first time, Connecticut fell out of the top 5 in 2002.
17 A View from Corporate America Winning Strategies in the Economic Development Marketing Game
Table D: LEAST FAVORABLE BUSINESS CLIMATE (2002 v. 1999 v. 1996 Surveys)
2002 1999 1996 California (57%) New York (29%) New York (55%)
New York (36%) California (25%) California (47%)
Massachusetts (18%) Massachusetts (19%) New Jersey (20%)
New Jersey (15%) New Jersey (14%) Massachusetts (19%)
Connecticut (10%) Connecticut (9%)
Appendix B shows the number of answers and the percentage of respondents for all U.S. states.
18 A View from Corporate America Winning Strategies in the Economic Development Marketing Game
VII
FAVORABILITY PERCEPTIONS OF BUSINESS CLIMATE IN EUROPE
The 1999 survey introduced the question rating business climate favorability among 17 western European countries. The 17 countries were:
• Austria • Greece • Portugal • Belgium • Ireland • Spain • Denmark • Italy • Sweden • Finland • Luxembourg • Switzerland • France • The Netherlands • United Kingdom • Germany • Norway
In 2002, the question was repeated.
Most Favorable Rating
The rating among the respondents was very strong, with 68% citing the United Kingdom as having the most favorable business climate. Ireland followed with 46%. The list below gives the top five European countries rated with a most favorable business climate.
1. United Kingdom 68% 2. Ireland 46% 3. Germany 36% 4. Spain 29% 5. The Netherlands 23%
These responses mirror the responses from 1999. Once again, the U.K. was considered as having the most favorable business climate. The table presented on the following page shows how consistent executives’ opinions of European business locations have been.
19 A View from Corporate America Winning Strategies in the Economic Development Marketing Game
TABLE E: MOST FAVORABLE EUROPEAN BUSINESS CLIMATE (2002 v. 1999 Surveys)
2002 1999 United Kingdom (68%) United Kingdom (65%)
Ireland (46%) Ireland (52%)
Germany (36%) Germany (36%)
Spain (29%) Spain (32%)
The Netherlands (23%) The Netherlands (24%)
20 A View from Corporate America Winning Strategies in the Economic Development Marketing Game
Least Favorable Ratings
Sixty-three percent of respondents consider France to have the least favorable business climate among the European countries; this represents a spike in France’s negative rating, which in 1999 was only 47%. Germany, which is also considered as having a most favorable business climate, follows with 34%. Italy with 32% and Greece with 28% round out the list. The remaining responses were very diffuse. A fifth place country could not be ascertained accurately. The list below provides a breakdown of responses.
1. France 63% 2. Germany 34% 3. Italy 32% 4. Greece 28%
When compared to the responses from the U.S. corporate executives in 1999, these responses show a change in the ordering of the countries, though the list remains the same. Once again, France was considered as having the least favorable business climate. The table below shows the change in U.S executives’ opinions of European business locations.
TABLE F: LEAST FAVORABLE EUROPEAN BUSINESS CLIMATES (2002 v. 1999 Surveys)
2002 1999 France (63%) France (47%)
Germany (34%) Greece (39%)
Italy (32%) Italy (35%)
Greece (28%) Germany (29%)
Appendix C shows all European states and the number of responses garnered for “most favorable” and “least favorable” business climate.
21 A View from Corporate America Winning Strategies in the Economic Development Marketing Game
VIII
PERCEPTIONS OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATIONS: A COMPARATIVE VIEW
Overall, 63% of the respondents indicated having worked with economic development (ED) organizations.
Respondents were also asked to rate their overall impression of economic development organizations with whom they have worked. Using a 1 to 5 scale (1 equals “not favorable;” 5 equals “highly favorable”), about 53% of the business leaders in the current study selected a “4” or “5” rating which indicates a most favorable response to working with ED groups.
The following table provides a breakdown of the 2002 results to this question.
Table 5: OVERALL IMPRESSIONS OF ED ORGANIZATIONS (2002 Survey)
Rating Respondents Highly favorable “5” 7% “4” 46% “3” 42% “2” 4% Not favorable “1” .6%
The chart below compares how U.S. corporate executes rated economic development organizations in 1996, 1999 and 2002.
22 A View from Corporate America Winning Strategies in the Economic Development Marketing Game
Chart 4 RATING COMPARISON: CORPORATE IMPRESSIONS OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATIONS (2002 v. 1999 v. 1996 Surveys)
60% 53% 2002
50% 46% 45% 1999 42% 40% 35% 1996 29% 30%
20% 16% 14%
10% 7% 4% 4% 3% 1% 0% 2% 0% Not Favorable 2 3 4 Highly Favorable
When asked the open-ended question “In a typical site location search, what is the most important thing an economic development organization could do for you or provide to you?” the responses were varied. Frequent responses included:
• Information/assistance in obtaining financial/tax incentives 54% • General information about the locale, including available sites 29% • Information/assistance with workforce/ training resources 12% • Contact/coordination with local authorities; elimination of “red tape” 11%
An accounting of all responses is provided in Appendix D.
23 A View from Corporate America Winning Strategies in the Economic Development Marketing Game
IX
FACILITY MOST LIKELY TO BE INVOLVED IN THE NEXT SITE SELECTION DECISION
As in the1999 and the 1996 studies, survey participants in 2002 were asked: “The next time you move, expand, consolidate or add a new facility, which of the following would be the most likely candidate for such a change?” Respondents were asked to choose one from the following list of options:
• Corporate, division or regional headquarters • Manufacturing/production plant • Regional sales office or service center • Distribution center • Back office facility (financial services, data processing or telemarketing center) • Other
Overall, 44% of the respondents selected manufacturing or production plant as the most likely candidate for the next corporate change. This was followed by 19% choosing corporate, division or regional headquarters and 15% favoring distribution centers. The following table provides a breakdown of all responses.
Table 6: NEXT CHOICE FOR CORPORATE FACILITY CHANGE (2002 Survey)
Facility Respondents Change since 1999 Manufacturing/production plant 44%
Corporate, division or regional 19% headquarters
Distribution center 15%
Regional sales office or service 14% center
Back office facility 8%
Other 7%
24 A View from Corporate America Winning Strategies in the Economic Development Marketing Game
When compared to the 1996 and 1999 studies, the current findings reflect a dramatic shift back towards manufacturing facilities. In 1999, manufacturing/production plant facilities decreased 17%, moving into third place.
Another significant change is that regional sales office or service center falls to fourth place in 2002. It had been rated first among the six choices in 1999, up from third place in 1996.
Table G: COMPARATIVE CHOICES FOR FACILITY CHANGES (2000 v. 1999 v. 1996 Survey)
Facility 2002 1999 1996 Manufacturing/ 44% 20% 37% production plant Corporate, 19% 21% 22% division or regional headquarters Distribution center 15% 10% 8%
Regional sales 14% 28% 17% office or service center Back office 8% 14% 13% facility Other 7% 8% 3%
25 A View from Corporate America Winning Strategies in the Economic Development Marketing Game
X
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS (2002 Survey)
Business Type
Manufacturing 60% Non-manufacturing 40%
Gross Revenue
$500+ million 43% $250-499 million 21% Less than $250 million 36%
26 A View from Corporate America Winning Strategies in the Economic Development Marketing Game
XI
A WORD ABOUT DCI
DCI is the only firm that specializes exclusively in all phases of economic development marketing. Since 1960 DCI has served clients in both the U.S. and abroad including 35 U.S. states, 23 countries, six Canadian provinces and more than 100 regions and communities.
Our areas of expertise include:
• Editorial Placement/Public Relations • Prospect and Site Selector Meetings • Direct Mail/Telemarketing • Marketing Blueprints • Special Events • Themeline Development • Corporate Executive/Media Audits • Tourism Development • Sales Literature
Located in the media capital of the world, DCI has worked with more economic development groups than all other marketing agencies combined. The firm also has frequently formed alliances with local advertising, public relations and marketing agencies providing specialized, economic development input.
27
APPENDIX A
QUESTIONNAIRE/COVER LETTER
Development Counsellors International 461 Park Avenue South, New York, NY 10016 Phone (212) 725-0707 Fax: (212) 725-2254 E-mail [email protected] / Website: www.aboutdci.com
July 10, 2002
«NAME» «TITLE» «COMPANY» «ADDRESS1» «ADDRESS2» «CITY», «STATE» «ZIP»
Dear «SALUTATION»:
It will probably take you five minutes to complete the attached survey. But your comments will provide invaluable assistance to economic development professionals worldwide in better understanding the site selection needs of companies like yours.
Would you be kind enough to give us your impressions by filling out the enclosed questionnaire and returning it to us by July 24 in the postage-paid response envelope provided for your convenience?
In the past, the results of this survey have received major attention in a number of general business publications including The Wall Street Journal. This year, the results of the survey will be presented to the International Economic Development Council (IEDC) during their September annual conference in Oakland, CA. Development Counsellors International (DCI), a specialized consulting firm that has served over 300 economic development organizations, is conducting the survey.
Thanks so much for your participation. If you would be kind enough, please enclose your business card with the completed survey. Should you have any questions, I encourage you to be in direct contact with Melissa Rossi Wood, DCI Account Supervisor, at 212/725-0707 or [email protected]. All responses will be kept confidential.
Sincerely,
Andrew T. Levine President
P.S. For your participation, please accept the enclosed $1 as an expression of our appreciation.
2002 Business Location Selection Survey
Please use the enclosed postage-paid response envelope to return the survey by July 24, 2002 to:
Development Counsellors International 461 Park Avenue South New York, NY 10016 USA
Please accept the enclosed $1 as an expression of our appreciation.
If you would be kind enough, please include your business card.
Your responses will be kept confidential.
Should you have any questions, please contact Melissa Rossi Wood, DCI Account Supervisor, at 212/725-0707 or [email protected].
1. Are you involved in the decisions to relocate, expand, consolidate or build new facilities for your company?
1 Yes (Continue) 2 No (Please pass this survey along to the appropriate person)
2. The next time that your company will move, expand, consolidate or add a facility, which of the following would be the most likely candidate for such a change? (Please circle ONE option)
1 Corporate, division or regional headquarters 2 Manufacturing/production plant 3 Regional sales office or service center 4 Distribution center 5 Back office facility (financial services, data processing or telemarketing center) 6 Other: ______
3. Has your company worked closely with economic development organizations (either on the state, regional or local level) in expanding, consolidating or adding a new facility?
Yes No
If YES, rate your overall impression of the economic development organizations with whom you have worked:
Not Favorable Highly Favorable
1 2 3 4 5
4. In a typical site location search, what is the most important thing an economic development organization could do for you or provide to you? ______
______
______
Northeast Connecticut Midwest Delaware Mountain Illinois Maine West Indiana Maryland Arizona Iowa Massachusetts Colorado Michigan New Hampshire Idaho Minnesota New Jersey Montana Missouri New York Nevada Ohio Pennsylvania New Mexico Wisconsin Rhode Island Utah Vermont Wyoming
South Pacific Plains Alabama Alaska Kansas Arkansas California Nebraska Florida Hawaii North Dakota Georgia Oregon Oklahoma Kentucky Washington South Louisiana Dakota Mississippi Texas North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee Virginia West Virginia
5. The above map divides the US into six regions. On a scale of 1 to 5 (1= poor, 5=excellent), please rate your opinion of the business climate of each region.
Poor Excellent Unsure
A. Northeast 1 2 3 4 5 6
B. Midwest 1 2 3 4 5 6
C. Mountain West 1 2 3 4 5 6
D. Pacific 1 2 3 4 5 6
E. Plains 1 2 3 4 5 6
F. South 1 2 3 4 5 6
6. Select the three states whose business climate you perceive as:
MOST FAVORABLE LEAST FAVORABLE
______
______
______
1 – Austria 2 – Belgium 3 – Denmark 4 – Finland 5 – France 6 – Germany 7 – Greece 8 – Ireland 9 – Italy 10 – Luxembourg 11 – The Netherlands 12 – Norway 13 – Portugal 14 – Spain 15 – Sweden 16 – Switzerland 17 – United Kingdom
7. Similarly, the above map illustrates 17 countries in Europe. Select the three countries whose business climate you perceive as:
MOST FAVORABLE LEAST FAVORABLE
______
______
______
8. In light of your responses to Questions 5 - 7, what are the three leading sources of information influencing your perceptions of an area’s business climate?
__ Articles in newspapers and magazines __ Personal travel __ Business travel __ Print advertising __ Dialogue with industry peers __ TV and radio advertising __ Direct Mail __ TV and radio newscasts/shows __ Meetings with economic development groups __ Word of mouth __ National surveys (e.g. Fortune or Money magazine) __ Other ______On-line sources (e.g. Internet, WWW)
9. In your most recent site location search, how often did you use the Internet as a source for information? Not at all Often
1 2 3 4 5
What online resources do you find to be particularly valuable in site selection? ______
______
10. What is the likelihood that you will visit an economic development organization’s website during your next site location search? Low High
1 2 3 4 5
Which of the following features do you consider most important to the usefulness of an economic development organization’s website? (Select up to 5)
__ Directory of available buildings & sites __ List of leading local employers __ Demographic information (e.g. population size, average income, age distribution) __ Information on local schools, including colleges and universities __ Information on available incentives __ News section that describes current developments __ Testimonials from local companies __ Photos/maps of the community __ Information on quality of life (e.g. residential neighborhoods/ recreation options) __ Information about the community’s target industries __ Current comparisons to competitor locations (e.g. cost comparisons) __ Website SiteMap 11. From your own experience as a site selector, rate the effectiveness of the following marketing techniques as a means of reaching corporate executives who may be considering a new site location. Poor Excellent Don’t Know
Advertising 1 2 3 4 5 6
Direct Mail 1 2 3 4 5 6
Internet/Web Site 1 2 3 4 5 6
Public Relations/ Publicity 1 2 3 4 5 6
Hosting Special Events 1 2 3 4 5 6
Planned Visits to Corporate Executives 1 2 3 4 5 6
Telemarketing 1 2 3 4 5 6
Trade Shows 1 2 3 4 5 6 Business Classification: The last few questions will help to classify your business. All data will be held confidential. C1. Which of the following best describes your primary business:
1 Manufacturing 2 Non-manufacturing
C2. What was the gross revenue last year for your company, including all plants, divisions, branches and subsidiaries?
1 Less than $25 million 4 $100-$249 million 2 $25-$49 million 5 $250-$499 million 3 $50-$99 million 6 $500 million or more
APPENDIX B
SUMMARY OF U.S. BUSINESS CLIMATE FAVORABILITY
STATE No. of answers No. of answers (% of cases): (% of cases): “Most Favorable Business “Least Favorable Business Climate” Climate” N=240 N=222
Alabama 34 (14.2%) 8 (3.6%) Alaska 2 (.8%) 5 (2.3%) Arizona 27 (11.3%) 2 (.9%) Arkansas 3 (1.3%) 10 (4.5%) California 34 (14.2%) 127 (57.2%) Colorado 18 (7.5%) 2 (.9%) Connecticut 2 (.8%) 7 (3.2%) Delaware 4 (1.7%) 0 Florida 42 (17.5%) 22 (9.9%) Georgia 37 (15.4%) 4 (1.8%) Hawaii 0 8 (3.6%) Idaho 3 (1.3%) 9 (4.1%) Illinois 33 (13.8%) 11 (5.0%) Indiana 19 (7.9%) 2 (.9%) Iowa 4 (1.7%) 4 (1.8%) Kansas 12 (5.0%) 1 (.4%) Kentucky 13 (5.4%) 3 (1.4%) Louisiana 5 (2.1%) 13 (5.9%) Maine 1 (.4%) 7 (3.2%) Maryland 2 (.8%) 5 (2.3%) Massachusetts 5 (2.1%) 39 (17.6%) Michigan 17 (7.1%) 15 (6.8%) Minnesota 5 (2.1%) 14 (6.3%) Mississippi 13 (5.4%) 19 (8.6%) Missouri 5 (2.1%) 1 (.4%) Montana 0 6 (2.7%) Nebraska 2 (.8%) 6 (2.7%) Nevada 29 (12.1%) 0 New York 23 (9.6%) 80 (36.0%) New Hampshire 0 2 (.9%) New Jersey 7 (2.9%) 33 (14.9%) New Mexico 4 (1.7%) 2 (.9%) North Carolina 48 (20.0%) 2 (.9%) North Dakota 0 18 (8.1%) Ohio 24 (10.0%) 13 (5.9%) Oklahoma 7 (2.9%) 3 (1.4%) Oregon 6 (2.5%) 19 (8.6%) Pennsylvania 14 (5.8%) 8 (3.6%) Rhode Island 0 2 (.9%)
STATE No. of answers No. of answers (% of cases): (% of cases): “Most Favorable Business “Least Favorable Business Climate” Climate” N=240 N=222
South Carolina 44 (18.3%) 1 (.4%) South Dakota 4 (1.7%) 11 (5.0%) Tennessee 27 (11.3%) 5 (2.3%) Texas 59 (24.6%) 14 (6.3%) Utah 9 (3.8%) 1 (.4%) Vermont 0 7 (3.2%) Virginia 13 (5.4%) 3 (1.4%) Washington 6 (2.5%) 21 (9.5%) West Virginia 0 6 (2.7%) Wisconsin 4 (1.7%) 6 (2.7%) Wyoming 0 7 (3.2%)
APPENDIX C
SUMMARY OF EUROPEAN BUSINESS CLIMATE FAVORABILITY
COUNTRY No. of answers (% of cases): No. of answers (% of cases): “Most Favorable Business “Least Favorable Business Climate” Climate” N= 200 N= 184
Austria 7 (3.5%) 18 (9.8%)
Belgium 18 (9.0%) 16 (8.7%)
Denmark 5 (2.5%) 5 (2.7%)
Finland 9 (4.5%) 10 (10.3%)
France 27 (13.5%) 115 (62.5%)
Germany 71 (35.5%) 62 (33.7%)
Greece 1 (.5%) 51 (27.7%)
Ireland 92 (46.0%) 13 (7.1%)
Italy 25 (12.5%) 58 (31.5%)
Luxembourg 6 (3.0%) 5 (2.7%)
The Netherlands 45 (22.5%) 7 (3.8%)
Norway 3 (1.5%) 14 (7.6%)
Portugal 23 (11.5%) 14 (7.6%)
Spain 57 (28.5%) 25 (13.6%)
Sweden 13 (6.5%) 27 (14.7%)
Switzerland 20 (10.0%) 20 (10.9%)
UK 135 (67.5%) 30 (16.3%)
APPENDIX D
OPEN-ENDED RESPONSES
In a typical site location search, what is the most important thing an economic development organization can do for you or provide to you?
“Overview of public services and job market” “Provide info on tax incentives and facilitate receiving the incentives” “Arrange for contacts with local officials” “Economics/factors affecting profitability; Tax issues - inventory, profits, credits, payroll, worker’s comp; Union - right to work; legal friendliness toward business” “Tax abatement; highway access” “Incentives and abatements” “Help with workforce training and possibly selection; provide favorable economic climate to offset move, setup and startup costs” “Info on benefits of the new area - possibly evaluation and negotiation of the terms of the site chosen” “Incentives” “Incentive packages; economic evaluations; demographics information (labor); available sites and cost” “Information relating to the quality of the workforce, school systems, transportation systems; We also want to know about tax incentives and other potential incentives” “Provide economic incentives” “Nothing, expansion driven by new retail development in market areas that will demographically support new store development” “Eliminate barriers to approval” “Infrastructure information” “Employee statistics, employee training, economic assistance” “Financing, job creation incentives, tax abatements” “Unsure, we are not in the market to move at this time” “Incentives, infrastructure, local workforce capabilities (technical & skills)” “Credits, ease to get into, etc.” “Assistance with incentives – tax and training” “Help us obtain all of the necessary licenses and permits thereby helping us better control the entire construction process” “Capital income; taxable income” “Tax assistance; Permitting – operating, environmental; relocation advice; training programs” “Tax incentives; training grants; infrastructure assistance” “Labor availability” “Provide information on regional availability, incentive opportunities; workforce availability; local cost of labor/living info” “A clear understanding of economic development incentives available for my company and my particular project” “Don’t think there’s anything” “Never used”
“Location, location, location” “Local workforce availability and tax incentives” “Provide abatements, incentives” “Labor cost” “Identify incentives” “Provide monetary incentives” “Lower cost” “Site locations; regulatory authority advice” “Help through their red tape; work “hands on” with us; one entity to work with, who can help with various other entities” “Factual information” “Provide economical incentives” “Identify contact person – real estate” “Have not worked with any, therefore, I am not familiar with services available” “Site selection; tax assistance” “Local government incentives; local labor market” “We use brokers for site selection when seeking new sales or small distribution center. At HQ we use economic development for tax/disposition assistance” “Uncertain; escrow office location is centered around sphere of influence that a newly hired escrow office has” “Tax incentives; quality labor” “Credits or incentives available” “Labor; utilities; infrastructure; water/sewer; $ incentive” “Tax incentives; high caliber workforce candidates” “Unbiased area data” “Find inexpensive financing; tax breaks” “Local regulations” “Probably not too much” “Worker education/training; local introductions; help with feasibility studies” “Identify sites; identify labor availability; identify economic factors” “Tax incentives; trained employees” “Information on incentives; tax information; overall cost information” “Information and access to the right individuals at government” “Staffing info; salary data; capability levels” “Analytical data support” “Employment potential; local planning and permits, etc.; tax and utility costs” “Arrange for financial incentives” “Workforce demographics; single stop for assistance information; develop contacts for permits, etc.” “Provide information on current and historical market conditions; i.e. employment data, tax data, utilities, facility costs (rent & build), schools, medical facilities” “Tax abatement” “Location” “Provide info help with gov. approvals” “Economic incentives: for capital improvements, training $ for new employees”
“Incentives to locate at their country, i.e. property tax abatements and/or credits, job creation credits, training funds, infrastructure funds” “Financial assistance; employee training” “Access to market/clients” “Workforce info; ability to deliver infrastructure; list of what is and will be available” “Verify the availability of quality labor” “Info regarding the future development plans of the area – since we are industrial, how big of a problem is noise and dust pollution?” “Provide tax incentives” “Accurate information” “Available space in desired area; tax advantages and disadvantages; market comparisons” “Fair tax base, community low interest loan; reasonably stable labor market; average utility rates, roads, etc.” “Information on taxes, laws” “Market analysis of potential customers and competitor landscape” “Expansion only – present location” “Tax incentives; investment sharing; training funds” “Tax abatement, proper zoning, vacation of Right-Of-Ways” “Infrastructure improvements, labor pool statistics, tax abatements” “Most of our assistance with economic development orgs. has been in selling or donating a facility” “Help locate a site and provide economic incentives” “Economic incentives” “Incentives – tax reductions, grants, loans, etc.” “Incentive summary, location analysis” “Available trained workforce” “Knowledge of the economic costs of the location” “Location to customers” “Assist in obtaining incentives or tax advantages” “Provide incentives” “Keep matters confidential, be timely and responsive, expedited permitting” “Tax advantages; training cost offsets” “We typically move where our clients reside” “Data on wage rates, taxes, infrastructure” “Access to the most aggressive incentive package; access to the most favorable labor sources; access to effective R.E. solutions” “Incentives for development, including tax incentives and other economic incentives to make it cost attractive” “Maximizing the economic incentives available” “Tax abatement” “Provide funding” “Availability of competent workforce” “Financial benefits; labor pool” “Costs; supporting infrastructure for our business; regulations and permits”
“Tax incentives; affordable houses analysis” “Provide details regarding tax incentives or programs available” “Tax incentives; good labor force” “Jobs; tax incentives; energy incentives” “Financial incentives” “List of local sites” “Jobs, tax, credits” “Good manufacturing workforce” “Quick action; low interest financing” “Ability to move to desired location” “Available facilities; incentives; demographic data” “Labor cost and availability” “Present comparative sites” “Fund incentives” “Location along main highways and access to and from” “Provide information on the known (planned or underway) economic development activities for the region being considered” “Incentives; clear zoning hurdles” “Infrastructure availability/status; financial incentives” “Economic development of organizations to whom I have worked” “Tax incentives” “Provide assistance in working through the approval and development process” “Information (workforce, extraordinary situations, union info) $ - funds available for training employees, road or utility upgrades, etc.” “Tax incentives, industrial bond financing” “Workforce skills/availability; tax abatements” “Tax abatement” “Provide an inventory of available properties that fit our needs” “Low cost of site, tax incentives” “Tax relief” “Employment; wage; tax structure; transportation info” “Labor rates” “Training/employment incentives” “Location; tax incentives” “Help steer us through the city/county bureaucracy” “Info on taxes, infrastructure costs, workforce skills, local university specialties” “Tax abatements – since the initial years of an investment typically result in reduced profitability or even losses, as changes are made” “Lower cost of total project” “Candor of past efforts” “Confidentially identify alternatives available” “Lower R/E taxes; IRB financing” “Provide better financing” “Building availability; tax incentives; labor rates/composition” “Tax abatement”
“Develop incentive based tax credit program and job credit program” “Aid despite tight timescales; tax incentives; investment credits” “Tax incentives; zoning support (signs are critical)” “Local contacts with contractors and state reps.” “Cost incentives” “Marketing analysis” “Provide advice on location and advantages that is attached to such locations also any disadvantages” “Provide assurances that the labor pool is there. At stage 2 we ask them to hold a job fair or to collect resumes. We attend the job fair.” “Provide tax incentives” “Provide accurate financial data such as hourly wage rates, salaries, property taxes, utilities and local cost of living indices. Access to local companies for meetings and tours.” “Assist with employee training and tax relief” “Possible tax benefits from either the local or state governments” “Accurate timely data” “Assist with local planning/development approval process” “Friendly business; tax environment” “Clearly offer all potential benefits in light of community benefits; search for sites – confidentially!!; provide written confirmation of benefits” “Find low cost land and utility options” “Weed through the politics” “Cut through red tape; provide a list of potential sites; help deal with any environmental issues” “Land; tax abatement; roads, sewer, etc.” “Property tax incentives” “Information on incentives; information on workforce availability/salaries” “Provide tax, utility and grants to start up” “Clear concise information regarding incentives available in the area” “Permitting of emissions, site/build plans; establishing labor availability” “Available sites to meet our customers’ needs; financial incentives” “Our organization plans to expand from it’s local facility” “Help get some local/state funding; aid in getting enviro operating permits” “Describe benefits/competitive advantage” “Information on roads and people; tax reduction information; city and state growth outlook” “Financing (tax breaks); employment incentives” “Information on specific areas; incentive package info” “List of facilities available” “State of art infrastructure; cat 5, fiber, cable, DSL ; close to airport” “Labor force” “Information about local, state regulations zoning ordinances and tax circumstances; availability of utilities and other services” “Make us aware of local incentives and provide contact companies”
“Coordinate permitting process and contact with local sellers” “Job credits, training credits, tax incentives” “Tax incentives/other available incentives; info on education of workforce” “Don’t use them” “Real time employment/unemployment numbers; local universities – enrollment, numbers in each school/college/department; accurate labor pool within a reasonable commuting distance (usually 35 to 45 mi.); incentives available – forgivable loans, tax credits, training reimbursements” “Site approval” “Match re contract with our new contract” “Phase I: provide quick answers to specific questions not available on our own database; Phase II: assist in setting up employer interviews” “Detailed info on incentives and real estate” “Provide me with information/data in a timely manner” “Provide exact information and not as much fluff; also information that is recent and accurate” “The most important things that an EDO can provide are: 1) information about the area in question, from both an incentives and location perspective, and 2) facilitate communication with other EDOs in the region that will participate in the program” “Specific site information based on our RFP” “Provide a one page date sheet, updated monthly with: 1) list of major mfrs employment product – union/non-union 2) unemployment 3) distance and major airports 4) other pertinent local info 5) best industrial site info” “Provide accurate up-to-date information pertinent to the project” “Access to employers” “Accurate information” “Know state economic development programs; state and local incentives; site/bldg. Availability” “Respond accurately, completely and within deadline; in depth local information” “Online access to local data i.e. workforce, taxes, general operating costs” “Local intelligence and knowledge; accuracy and speed” “Good demographic data about labor force, education, household formations, wages, cost of housing (sale/rental), transportation access and planned development” “Provide entré to the local business community for meetings, information, etc.” “Assistance in providing a list comparison of tax and financial incentives in one location as compared to another under consideration, location and site information (available real estate, costs, etc.) are often in abundance but possible cost-offsets are harder to uncover” “Provide information about local operating conditions including labor, utilities, taxes” “Provide timely, complete, and accurate responses to requests for information; organize and lead professional and responsive community visits and site tours” “Provide objective, without prejudice, information on the important issues, labor, location and accessibility, economic statistics and incentives, access to available property, etc.”
“Information; community contacts” “Information on current $ future plans for the area, grants and pending legislation that may favorably or adversely affect the business” “Tax implications” “Incentives (property tax, workers, training, etc) support for permits, neighborhood associations, government agencies” “Guidance on specialized tax incentives” “Location; demographics; economic status” “Living environment for future employees – climate, education, recreation, cultural amenities, etc.” “Basic demographics of businesses” “Financing of the building, land and TI improvements; favorable tax breaks” “Facilitate discussions with tax, employment, utility agencies/authorities” “Labor statistics” “Site location and labor analysis; ease of permits – as required; tax incentives; energy incentives” “Identify locations and provide incentives”
What online resources do you find to be particularly valuable in site selection? “Bloomberg, loopnet” “Development organization sites” “Yahoo; state development boards/agencies; Chamber of Commerce” “Yahoo search” “Regional real estate site profiles for narrowing possibilities based on site criteria” “Various lease databases” “More likely to use net to qualify brokers rather than select a site” “Real estate brokers” “Chambers of commerce” “Mall web pages; internet based site locator” “Development groups” “Employment and education statistics” “Maps and city demographics” “State economic sites and Dept. of Revenues” “Better Business Bureau, US Govt. - Commerce Dept.” “Loopnews, CoStar” “eal estate listings” “City/state web pages” ‘Demographics’ ‘Corenet; local economic development sites” “State sites in general” “Govt. sites” “General info to familiarize one on the potential site” “Cost of living comparison sites” “Local chambers of commerce” “Demographic resources” “Economic development state’s statistics” “MSN, Yahoo” “Financial sites; business peers; government” “Location map with demographic detail” “Information from state agencies” “State economic development agency sites and loopnet” “Yahoo and other search engines” “Transportation; tax; population; trends” “State websites for business expansion” “Home and school info; chamber of commerce info” “CIA; Census Bureau” “State sites/regulatory agencies” “Government, city, state and local sites” “Unemployment statistics”
“State government websites” “EDC sites” “State sites” “State economic development sites” “Google/IMO” “N.A. Realty; Checked R/E sites i.e. Coldwell Banker, Cush/Wakefield” “Local tax information” “Loopnet” “Expansion management; Econ. Dev. Sites by state – some better than others” “Community websites; salary survey sources; some statistical data (unemployment)” “EDC websites; government agency databases; independent data sources (realtor.com; monstermoving.com, etc.)” “Sites that are up to date and have good data” “Census bureau data, chambers of commerce and EDO websites; other federal data sources” “www.namssn.org” “Specific community locations” “U.S. Census; U.S. Labor Dept.; State Labor Depts.; State Development Agency websites; local ED websites” “ED sites” “State econ dev information websites” “Govt. reference sites; state/local ED sites” “Google; plasticsnews; facilitycity.com; biz.com; fortune.com” “Numerous” “Almost any US govt site, particularly Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Economist Intelligence Unit for Foreign Information, Site Selection magazine online” “Sites of specific ED organization in certain areas where a client is interested” “Community websites, bureau of labor, US census utility company websites” “US labor dept; US census” “Yahoo maps; demographics now” “Chamber of commerce of interested areas as well as the economic development commission” “Analysis of financial conditions, company websites, landlord data” “Census reports” “Driven by our RE representation and business development groups”