|
The past few posts have been interesting and thought provoking, and they contained some thoughts and comments that I would like to add to. These deal with hiring a Marketing Director, bout the Discussion Paper, and the local economy. I don't think the Discussion Paper was "ignored" as claimed, but rather it had, in my opinion and I suspect the opinions of others as well, some basis inaccurate or implausible assumptions. With the basic premises being perceived as erroneous, the resulting conclusions were obviously perceived as erroneous also. Let me explain. The premise that the "city's income must increase 5%-10% per year" is unusually ambitious. Remember, the national economy typically grows at a targeted 2 1/2 percent a year. More than 2 1/2 is considered inflationary, and less than 2 1/2 is politically doom & gloom. I stress "politically," but "economically" 1 to 1 1/2 is accepted by most economists as inflation-free sustainable growth, which is a desirable growth in itself. With the national economy targeted for 1 1/2 to 2 1/2 percent, where do we get off thinking we must have up to 10% a year??? It's perceptions like that that reduced if not eliminated credibility before the rest of the "Discussion Paper" even got read. The next "assumption" is that "Eureka has NO OPTION [emphasis added] other than to make a success of the tourism business." I could agree that building on our strength, namely tourism, is the most viable option, but certainly not the ONLY one. However, it will not be easy to expand the economic base given Rick Murphy's continued belief that we are a "one pony town" as mentioned by Kim. While we are PRESENTLY a one pony town, we only have to remain that way if we CHOOSE to remain that way. I am not making a case that we should or should not diversify our economy, as that diversified growth into varied industries could take away from the quaint "America's Victorian Village" that brought us all here in hopes of getting away from all the ills that come from multi-based, large, fast growing economies typical of the cites from which most of us chose to leave. The next stated "assumption" is that the CAPC's role is to get tourists here, and the Chamber's role is to take care of them once they are here." It is NOT the Chamber's role (nor CAPC's role) to take care of them once they are here. That is the role of EVERY business and EVERY person in our area. Both agencies should help promote Eureka. Each business should promote itself. Each business should try to satisfy its customers, and not rely on the CAPC or the Chamber to take care of our customers for us. Once the CAPC and/or the Chamber gets the tourists here, they have done their job. We should all be kind to tourists (and it would not hurt to be kind to each other in the process, further "assuming" that "wonders never cease"). "Data bases" advocated by the Discussion Paper are currently being used by the state, and are created from the names of people calling 1-800-NATURAL and other sources. I agree our own data base could be valuable to Eureka as well if it were cost effective. However, the cost of using standard mail even for 2 times a year to remind the tourists of Eureka is not cost effective. At some .50 cents per mailing for standard mail including the cost of labor to prepare & administer the data base, a minimum two times a year is $1.00, times some 400,000 (based on 100,000 Visitor Guides MAIL inquiries a year over the past 4 years) and you now have to wonder where the $400,000 will come from. However, the Eureka Web Site Providers are proof-positive that e-mail data bases work. The Chamber's inquiries are primarily standard mail addresses for the Visitors Guide and thus not relevant for an e-mail data base. The mail data base would be helpful in terms of zip code analysis, and The Chamber's present data base allows for zip code sorting of persons who have requested a Visitors Guide, so I am not sure what further Data Base the Discussion Paper is suggesting, since no specifics were given. The conclusion is thus made by the Discussion Paper that to cure our ills we need to hire a "team-building Marketing & Promotion Director." That seems like a worthy conclusion, but it too has some downsides. For example, you may remember when Bill Freeland and I had a brief visit about a Marketing Director and Bill concluded that we need to go back to the days when we had 10% growth a year and hiring a Marketing Director was the way to get us there. Well, those big growth days were achieved THEN without a Marketing Director. In fact, those big growth days were achieved with the exact same set of circumstances as now exists, namely the sharing of the CAPC's Marketing Director's job with the Chamber's President, and having the CAPC's ad agency provide its expertise. It is my understanding (correct me if I am wrong) that the proposal is to pay the Marketing Director out of the money that is now paid to the ad agency, and let the Marketing Director place the ads now placed by the ad agency. That sounds fine on the surface. However, when we pay 15% to the ad agency, which in round numbers is $75,000 a year, we get more than the one person we would get for $75,000. We get the thinking and experience and creativity of several ad agency employees, thus not being limited to the creativity or imagination of just one human being who, not incidentally, will be pulled at by every self-serving opinionated faction in Eureka. We also get better (more strategic and cost effective) ad placement from an agency whose primary job is to know that market, than we will get from one Director who has to wear more than just the advertising hat. An ad agency also has better buying power because it negotiates ad prices for numerous customers by delivering numerous ads from numerous customers to that media, rather than, say, just Eureka advertising and negotiating for its lone self by its lone Director. This is also based on the assumption that you can get a real capable person for $75,000 a year, and we haven't even allowed for matching payroll taxes, benefits, insurance, a clerical assistant, phones, travel, rent etc, all of which could easily exceed $100,000 or so. Take this $75,000 to $100,000 out of the advertising budget, and what you have is a person who is supposed to generate MORE MONEY WITH LESS BUDGET TO DO IT. That does not sound particularly "do-able." In fact, I'd like to meet and hire for myself the marketing and advertising genius who CAN do it. If I could wave my magic wand and have what I THINK we need, I would be more inclined to hire a Marketing Clerk than a Marketing Director. This person's job would be to promote festivals and create & administer an e-mail data base and zip code data base. This would cost about 1/5 what a Marketing Director would cost(facilities could be shared with the Chamber to keep overhead down) and not cause us to lose the benefits described above that we get from a professional ad agency (does not have to be any particular ad agency, just whomever the CAPC selects). But wait, don't we ALMOST ALREADY have this? Isn't this what Cheri White at the Chamber now does? She already promotes festivals and keeps the media informed about what's going on in Eureka via over 250 media & e-mail contacts. All we need to do is look into adding e-mail data base to compliment the e-mail data bases that already exists at the current WEB site providers, and/or make a meaningful analysis from the existing zip code data base. The Chamber's present data base allows for zip code sorting of persons requesting a Visitors Guide. This question now becomes "exactly what is a CAPC Marketing Director supposed to do that is not now being done, or that cannot be done with far less than a $75,000 to $100,000 expense?" I would agree with the Discussion Paper that the Chamber should have a WEB site with demographic information etc for potential visitors/investors (and to promote current events even if only by a convenient link to existing WEB sites that already this same information), but I disagree that the statement "we have no place a potential business investor can go for information vital to decision-making." It is not available in one convenient place, but it is available. But if someone wants to contend that it is not available, then the question becomes "if it is not available, then where is the Chamber supposed to get it?" Another basic premise of the Discussion Paper was to have "one person in charge" to provide a "united front." Fine. But how do you have one person in charge if you have two people?? Common sense tells us that there is less of a "united front" with TWO PEOPLE (one from the CAPC and one from the Chamber) than if the CAPC & Chamber have a shared Director. Again, the Discussion Paper's premise itself seemed contradictory. This is another example why there was little if any response to the Discussion Paper, since there were simply too many incorrect or contradictory premises to address. Neither did I address the Discussion Paper when it first came out, for these very reasons, but I have chosen to address them now only because of the statement that it had been "ignored". If so, it was ignored due to the above reasons, not due to lack of concern for our town. Also, please do not construe that I am trying to drum up support for the Chambers President. Anyone familiar with me and Rick Murphy know I am anything but a Rick Murphy fan, but I try to see the bigger picture and look at the logic (or lack there-of) for a particular premise, rather than the personalities involved. We need another hole in our head about the same as we need another study, another illogical premise, another un-factual conclusion, another petition (sorry Bill), another committee, another whatever. With this in mind, again with my magic wand in hand, I am going to try to "fix" some (not all) of Eureka with the following. First, although we are a one pony tourism town, I personally hope we will do nothing to change the character of what brought us here. This means protecting the environment, even if it means no more growth. Second, "no more growth" can be more helpful than hurtful, IF, repeat IF, that is the only way to protect our major calling card, namely the beauty, character and ambiance of our area. Lose our major draw and what's left??? Third, our problem may not be that we have too few visitors; rather that we have too many businesses dividing the pie (considering the physical limitations of our town are not conducive to mass visitation). You cannot market Eureka as a quaint Victorian Village if you turn it into a metropolis. But bearing in mind that we are still over-built, I would suggest to the motels that cannot make a living on selling "twenty rooms two for twenty-two" to acknowledge that "cheap" is not where the market is. With that in mind, if it were my motel, I'd change (renovate) the twenty cheap rooms to ten upscale jacuzzi suites with king beds and fireplaces that meet the current demand of the most typical visitor. If a profit cannot be made at $22, is there not an obvious message there? I'd rather have ten rooms rented 60% of the time at say $95 a night than twenty rooms rented 20% of the time at $22 a night. However, if the property is not conducive to renovation, then distinguish yourself by being the best value, or the cleanest, or the most personal attention, or super location, or whatever. No matter what your claim to fame, and no matter what price market you are in or type of business you are in, LET YOUR REPEAT AND REFERRAL BUSINESS BE YOUR REPORT CARD. Fourth, accept that we are a tourist destination town that cannot rely on one market. We cannot rely on just families, just weddings, just honeymoons, just buses, just non-buses, just festivals, just one of anything. Our strength is that we do not rely on just one of anything, and this in itself is a strength, not a weakness. Therefore there is not just ONE market that we need to cater or advertise to. Fifth, accept that many people come here to open a business who have no business being in business. They want to succeed here on an 8 month year in a business that they would not dream of opening in their former home town on a twelve month year. Many businesses fail not due to the Eureka economy but to their own weaknesses or the weaknesses of their product. Let's not forget that many people paid too much for too little and have too little reserve capital and too little business expertise to realistically be a business success. Accept also that Eureka's growth years were due to over-flow from Branson's growth, and that over-flow ended when Branson over-built just like Eureka over-built. That growth did not come because of having or not having a CAPC Marketing Director. That growth did not come because of CJRW or any other ad agency, nor did it end because of any ad agency, and neither has changing ad agencies increased our business. (Before someone accuses me of favoring one agency over another, I have zero loyalty to any ad agency except to the ad agency that can deliver the biggest bang for the buck, and I don't care whose initials are on the shingle. I'll support any agency that can help Eureka and no agency that cannot. And while on the subject of advertising, does it not strike you a little strange that some of the strongest criticism of advertising programs comes from people who have not attended either of the state's past two years advertising previews to learn why the "research driven" advertising program is what it is? Kind of like "my mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts.") Sixth, because any primarily-tourism economy is a primarily weekend/holiday economy, try to increase our mid-week business by promoting Eureka as a convention/retreat/reunion destination. Probably the biggest argument I've ever had with Rick Murphy is over this very issue, when in our Publications Committee meeting we had to listen to his sermon on how it is impossible to promote us as a convention/retreat/reunion town without a $400,000 budget, and that (get this) we should even pull out the two pages in the Visitors Guide devoted to conventions/retreat/reunion and replace those pages with pages that generically promote Eureka (disregarding that we already have 22 other Visitors Guide pages doing just that). Go figure!!! Seventh, stop the deceptive advertising and hype. Stop claiming you offer "secluded" lodging when you offer one room three feet (if that) from another room. Side-by-side motel rooms & side-by-side B&B rooms are not secluded. Stop claiming first-class ambiance & first-class amenities & charging first-class prices & delivering instead second or third rate accommodations. Stop claiming that marginal restaurants offer a gourmet experience (some are an experience all right, but not a pleasant one, as some owners & servers are arrogant, rude, inattentive, some over priced, some under friendly). Again, let your repeat and referral business be your report card. Understand that repeat & referral business is the least costly business there is, but you don't develop repeat & referral business via hype, false advertising, mis-leading claims, and operating your business on the basis that there's a sucker born every minute. That mentality (?) and market strategy will always be looking for a NEW sucker, hence the mis-perceived need to market outside a reasonable driving area, because they've exhausted all available suckers within a reasonable driving area. Eighth, accept that the national vacation trend is for MORE FREQUENT BUT SHORTER STAYS, and stop belly-aching about short stays. That's the trend. I don't like it either. But I'm not going to beat my head against the wall fighting something I cannot control and/or advertising to a virtually non-existent market (at least rapidly disappearing market). Remember the stock market adage "the trend is your friend" and market accordingly. Even those people who do still take a full week vacation at a time will typically spend two nights in Branson, two in Eureka and two in Hot Springs. Five nights in one town is desirable but not likely, and if it is likely, be prepared that those five nights may be in someone else's town rather than our own. Ninth, accept that the tourists do pay more than the CAPC 2% tourism promotion tax. Be thankful that they also pay the base tax which is sent to Little Rock, then redistributed to the incorporated cities via a virtually incomprehensible formula (assuming Eureka is treated like other cities which I became familiar with while our area along Mundell Road was considering incorporating itself). These monies are sent back to incorporated cities in two forms. One is in the form of a dedicated use which is restricted to road use only, and the other form is for the general fund to be used any way the city decides. The people who claim that tourists use city roads and facilities without paying for them are simply wrong. They pay for what you probably can't or won't pay for yourself, so try treating the tourists like an income source that keeps you from having to pay more taxes yourself instead of treating them like an annoyance. Tenth, continue the present work to allow (yes, allow) businesses such as my own to collect a tourism tax based on our being inside the Eureka trading area even though we are not inside the Eureka City Limits. All of us "outsiders" benefit from being a part of Eureka, and all of us "outsiders" who think past the point of our nose don't mind collecting taxes for our fair share for the benefits we enjoy. But also accept that our customers DO PAY YOUR CAPC TAX PLUS YOUR BASIC TAX because our customers do shop in your shops, dine in your restaurants, buy your crafts, and keep you employed in the process. During the winter, many of you close, but we "in the sticks crowd" stay pretty busy and continue to send "OUR" customers to "YOUR" town, to YOUR shops (the ones still open) and YOUR restaurants (the ones still open), etc, etc, etc. The ONLY tax our customers do not pay is for lodging, and that's not by our choosing. That's the LAW. Eleventh, stop making conclusions not based on facts. For example, recently a person claimed "Business is Down." Yes, and the sky is falling, the sky is falling. For some, business is down. For others, business is up. For others, business is the same. If you want to make a general statement, then have some general facts to support your claim. A hysterical un-founded CLAIM is NOT A FACT. If you want to know if business is up or down, and by how much, here's how you do it. First, take the current CAPC tax collection figures that show on the surface that business receipts are up some 6%. Then deduct from that amount those receipts that are collected by the businesses that were not previously required to collect the tax. This will give you an apples-to-apples comparison from which you can make a reasonable conclusion. From this figure you will at first get the impression that shops and restaurants are UP and that lodging is DOWN. But that is not correct either. Why? Because last year it became a city requirement that businesses report SEPARATELY their receipts for shops vs restaurants vs lodging, whereas in prior years all three were reported together and "lumped" into whatever was the major category, which in most cases was LODGING. Twelfth, adopt the marketing adage "give the public what it wants when it wants it" and change/market yourself accordingly. Stop trying to provide what someone does not want. Let the market itself tell you. Look at your sales by product line and price line. Look at your competitors. Are the shops not doing well those selling trashy tourist trinkets available in any tourist town? Look at the shops that are doing well. They are the up-scale shops run by attentive owners. I haven't heard doom and gloom stories from these up-scale shops for which tourists will travel hours to shop in. But I have heard doom and gloom from the "me-too trinketeers" who sell nothing different from what's available in the tourists' home town. Tourists come for the EXPERIENCE OF SOMETHING DIFFERENT, not for the same-ole, same-ole shop, or the same-ole, same-ole restaurant, or the same-ole, same-ole lodging. Be different, and be good at it! And if you cannot be different, at least be good, and offer good value & less hype! Thirteenth, accept that I am too darned tired to continue this, and I hope I will not feel inclined to continue in the future, but may. And assure yourselves that I have already put on my bullet-proof vest, my fire-retardant flame-throwing suit, my steel helmet, my thick skin, and have abandoned any hope of having anyone in Eureka still speak to me (or speak to me absent four letter words). The views expressed herein are my own and I have changed my name to protect my innocence and parts of my aging anatomy. Respectfully, Formerly Charles Goodwin Beaver Lake Cottages September, 1998 Return to "Papers" Index Return to Eureka People |