2014 LAKE HAVASU CITY BENCHMARK VISITOR STUDY Conducted for the Lake Havasu City Convention & Visitors Bureau prism. travel & hospitality consulting. The Bureau would like to thank the following individuals who contributed their time and energy to review successive drafts of the visitor survey and maximize its effectiveness as a survey instrument. Cindy Aldridge Jerry Aldridge Bonnie Butterworth Don Callahan Rebecca Carder Charlie Cassens Kathryn Felke Michelle Gardia Ida Jones Jan Kassies Bob Keller Mayor Mark Nexsen Ron Nickel Margaret Nyberg Cal Sheehy Kathy Silverthorn Doug Traub . The Bureau also acknowledges the important contribution of the Partnership for Economic Development, which allowed the number of surveys distributed in the sample to be increased and the statistical accuracy of the results to be improved. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS – 1of 3 Background and Methodology…………………………………...…… 6 Executive Summary………………………………………………..…. 11 Visitor Overview……………………………………………….……. 34 VISITOR SEGMENTS: Recent Overnight Visitors………………………………………... 42 Traveler Spend and Visitor Value…………………………………. 71 Past Overnight Visitors………………………………………........ 77 Day Visitors………………………………………………………. 89 Non-Visitors…………………………………………………........ 105 Passed Through, Didn’t Visit…………………………………......... 107 Heard of Lake Havasu, Never Visited……………………………. 115 Never Heard of Lake Havasu……………………………………. 127 SPECIAL ISSUES Participation in Boating on Lake Havasu…………………………. 134 Special Events………………………………..……………………. 150 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS – 2 of 3 SPECIAL ISSUES (continued) Havasu Landing Resort & Casino……..……...……………...…… 156 Peer to Peer Lodging Intentions……………………..…….…….. 162 Accommodations…………………………….…………………. 168 Impressions and Nicknames……………………………….….…. 181 Wayfinding…………………………………………………..…..... 203 CVB Usage and Impressions………………………………..…..... 212 Visitor Travel Planning and Social Networking………………..…. 227 Resident Reactions…………………………..………………..…. 238 VISITOR ORIGINS AND DEMOGRAPHICS Visitor Origins………………………………….……….…..……. 259 Top 100 Zip Codes of Origin…..……………….…..……………. 266 Heard of, Never Visited but Expressed Interest………………….. 268 Visitor Demographics…………………………………………….. 269 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS – 3 of 3 ATTRACTIONS AND ACTIVITIES Attractions and Activities: Ranked……………………………..…. 288 Attractions and Activities That Prompt a Return……...…………. 308 Comparison of Behavior to What Would Prompt Return……… 319 Attractions That Prompt Return – Ranked by Category………... 324 Activities That Prompt Return – Ranked by Category………….. 337 DASHBOARDS Dashboards by Month…………………………………………..... 347 Dashboards by Visitor Type……………………………………..... 372 Dashboards by Economic Impact….………………………….…. 382 Dashboards by Millennial Visitors and Gamblers..……………..... 388 Dashboards by Visitors Who Visit in June-July………………….... 406 APPENDIX Attractions Visited – Ranked by Category…………..…….……... 408 Activities Participation– Ranked by Category……..……………... 422 5 BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY 6 Methodology • This survey was administered in October 2014 via a customized Internet survey tool and sent to a targeted group of 55,300 demographically balanced households identified as travelers. • This survey targeted respondents west of the Mississippi, plus Illinois, Michigan and western Canada. – This region was surveyed because data from the internal LHCCVB database indicates 82% of visitors reside in these areas. – It would be cost ineffective to survey or market to the 18% who reside east of the Mississippi. • 5,569 responded, and 92 responses were culled out as potentially unreliable, leaving a total response of 5,477, representing a response rate of 10.1%. • These statistics are valid +/- 0.8%, which was achieved by narrowing the field of respondents to travelers rather than surveying the general population. • Lake Havasu City residents were included in the study with a specialized set of questions and their data was analyzed separately from the external sample. 5,000 residents were invited to participate by email and the survey was also made available via hyperlink on the CVB website. A total of 338 completed the survey, 68 sourced from the website hyperlink and 270 from the email invitation. 5 responses were culled out as potentially unreliable, leaving a total of 333 completed resident surveys. • The margin of error for responses from Lake Havasu City residents is +/- 5.3%. Methodology • The survey instrument was crafted as a benchmarking tool, repeating questions and sampling methods from the 2010 Visitors Study to allow comparisons to prior results. • In addition, new questions were added to reflect new issues and trends. • The survey development was a collaborative effort of The Prism Partnership, Lake Havasu City Convention & Visitors Bureau, and the input and review of Lake Havasu City business people and civic leaders. • This is an extensive, detailed umbrella survey, with a customized survey embedded for each of 8 different respondent types. – Most destinations only customize for 2 or 3 respondent types. – The extra level of detail provides data for potential visitors and past visitors as well as current visitors. • The results of carefully-designed and executed Internet surveys such as this one are projectable to the population at large since 80% of the US population has Internet access. (Source: US Census Bureau 2010 Census). IllustrationsLAKE of countryHAVASU and CITY administry BENCHMARK districts VISITORS STUDY SURVEY COVERAGE AREA SHOWN BELOW A REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLING OF TRAVELERS FROM THE HIGHLIGHTED STATES, PLUS BRITISH COLUMBIA AND ALBERTA RESPONSE PROFILE The 2014 Lake Havasu City Benchmark Visitors Study was sent to a demographically balanced sample of 55,300 travelers west of the Mississippi, plus Illinois, Michigan and Western Canada. A total of 5,569 responded, from which 92 were culled out as potentially unreliable. This leaves 5,477 total respondents and a response rate of 10.1%. See below for breakouts by respondent type. The overall study has a margin of error of +/- .08%, and the data for nearly all segments is reliable, with the exception of the vacation home segment (denoted with a **) which has a sample size too small to drill down for further detail. (The long-term visitors segment was too small to drill down for further detail in 2010.) RESPONDENT TYPE 2014 PERCENT OF SAMPLE (2010 comp) RESPONDENTS (2010 comp) OVERNIGHT PAST 12 MOS 6.1% (5.3%) 334 (228) OVERNIGHT 2-3 YRS AGO 4.9% (3.7%) 268 (155) PAST OVERNIGHT, 3+ YEARS AGO 5.1% (4.9%) 279 (206) SUB-TOTAL: OVERNIGHT VISITORS 16.1 (13.9%) 881 (589) LONG-TERM VISITORS** 2.3% (1.3%) 126 (54) VACATION HOME / CONDO / 1.0% (1.2%) 55 (51) TIMESHARE** SUB-TOTAL: LONG-TERM VISITORS 3.3 (2.5%) 181 (105) DAY VISITORS 5.6% (5.9%) 307 (248) THROUGH OR NEAR, DIDN’T VISIT 8.0% (8.4%) 438 (353) HEARD OF, NEVER VISITED 33.7% (36.3%) 1,851 (1525) NEVER HEARD OF 32.1% (32.9%) 1,759 (1,382) LIVE FULL TIME LAKE HAVASU CTY 1.1% (na) 60 (na) TOTAL 100.0% 5,477 (4,202) 10 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 11 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND • This study was conducted to gain reliable and projectable data about travelers’ awareness, visitation, experiences and impressions of Lake Havasu City, and to measure changes since the baseline study conducted in 2010. • This data provides the source for visitor profiles based on their tourism revenue potential to Lake Havasu City, allowing the most targeted and effective use of the tourism marketing budget. METHODOLOGY • The 2014 Lake Havasu City Benchmark Visitors Study was sent by email invitation to a demographically balanced sample of 55,300 travelers west of the Mississippi, plus Illinois, Michigan and Western Canada. • This geography was targeted because analysis of LHCCVB’s internal database revealed 82% of visitors live in this area. • A total of 5,569 responded, from which 92 were culled out as potentially unreliable. This resulted in 5,477 total respondents and a response rate of 10.1%. • The overall study has a margin of error of +/- .08%. 12 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS • There was a significant increase in overnight and long-term visitors to Lake Havasu City, 16.6% overall in 2014, up from 13.9% in 2010 for overnight visitors and 3.3% in long-term visitors, up from 2.5% in 2010. • Analysis of the data reveal these increases in overnight visitors are the result of conversion of travelers who had heard of but never visited Lake Havasu City. • It is important to understand that this is a very positive change to the fundamental composition of visitors to Lake Havasu City, and is separate from any natural increases in overall tourism to Arizona. • The charts on the next two pages illustrate these changes in detail. 13 TRENDS - Experience With Lake Havasu City 2014 results show two important changes since 2010; more travelers west of the Mississippi are aware of Lake Havasu City, and there were significant gains in overnight and long-term visitors. The new overnight and long-term visitors were converted from those who previously heard of, but had never visited Lake Havasu City. As shown below, overnight visitors have increased while day visitors have remained essentially flat. This results in a very positive economic impact for the city, since each overnight travel party has a value of $662 in total average spend compared to day visitor parties who average $269. Experience With Lake Havasu City 2014 2010 16.6% OVERNIGHT VISITORS-NET 13.9% Visited overnight in the past 12 months 5.3%6.3% Visited overnight 2-3 years ago 3.7%5.1% Visited 3+ years ago 5.2% 4.9% LONG TERM VISITORS NET 2.5%3.3% Non-visitors