By: TMP Staff Reports-July 29, 2008
Posted: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 3:16 pm
The city of Murfreesboro failed to secure a Bridgestone technical center despite being one of two finalists.
Bridgestone Americans announced Tuesday afternoon that it had elected to build a state-of-the-art technical center in Akron, Ohio near its existing research center.
“While we are disappointed that the company did not choose the Murfreesboro Gateway as their final location, we applaud the city of Akron and the state of Ohio for retaining such a fine company”, said Murfreesboro Mayor Tommy Bragg. Ohio offered Bridgestone an economic development package estimated at $68 million. Tennessee officials wouldn’t release the incentives offered to the company.
The technical center employs 600.The city of Murfreesboro, State of Tennessee Department of Economic & Community Development, the Rutherford County Industrial Development Board, Rutherford County Government, Rutherford County Chamber of Commerce and Middle Tennessee State University worked very aggressively through site selection, education initiatives and incentive negotiation to secure this project on a specific site within the Murfreesboro Gateway, local officials said.
“It is always difficult to compete against the home-team advantage,” said Holly S. Weber, vice president of economic development, Rutherford County Chamber of Commerce, “the city of Murfreesboro, State Economic Development, MTSU along with our department worked aggressively and presented a sound economic package, which included incentives involving land, tax abatements, infrastructure, training and relocation costs.” More here.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Fishing in the Same Pond
Officials dangle incentives, attracting firms across county lines
Sat. July 26 - 2008
Peter Schnitzler - pschnitzler@ibj.com
Marion County economic development officials are proud of their latest headquarters attraction. Bowen Engineering Corp. will inject 103 high-paying jobs into the Indianapolis economy immediately. And over time, the company expects to add another 138. Their average salaries will top $70,000.
The deal didn’t require Mayor Greg Ballard to travel to Japan, or even to another state. Bowen Engineering is moving all of 8.4 miles, from its former home in Fishers to the 8800 block of North Meridian Street.
But in crossing the Marion County line, the company earned itself a seven-year property tax abatement valued at $290,389.
“We were pleased that Bowen wanted to make Indianapolis its home, and excited about that,” said Deputy Mayor Nick Weber, who leads economic development for Ballard.
“At the end of the day, we’re looking for Indianapolis to have a vibrant economy, with employment possibilities for our citizens. Companies that want to be a part of that, we’re interested in talking to.”
Indianapolis didn’t set out to poach Bowen Engineering, which declined to comment to IBJ because lease negotiations for its new location aren’t complete. Marion County economic-development officials began courting the company only after it couldn’t find new space near its current home to its liking.
And they opened talks only after Fishers granted a release letter—something counties routinely do when companies suggest they might move outside central Indiana.
The letters are necessary because officials in Indianapolis and the suburbs long have agreed that pilfer- ing companies within the region is a no-no.
Yet there has been a spate of such deals lately, most involving substantial incentives. In the last year, Indianapolis landed both Bowen and Haverstick Consulting. At the same time, it lost ASI Ltd., Freije Treatment Systems Inc., Klaisler Manufacturing Corp. and SMC Corporation of America.
But doling out incentives to reshuffle companies that already are in the region strikes some observers as a waste of precious tax dollars. More here.
Sat. July 26 - 2008
Peter Schnitzler - pschnitzler@ibj.com
Marion County economic development officials are proud of their latest headquarters attraction. Bowen Engineering Corp. will inject 103 high-paying jobs into the Indianapolis economy immediately. And over time, the company expects to add another 138. Their average salaries will top $70,000.
The deal didn’t require Mayor Greg Ballard to travel to Japan, or even to another state. Bowen Engineering is moving all of 8.4 miles, from its former home in Fishers to the 8800 block of North Meridian Street.
But in crossing the Marion County line, the company earned itself a seven-year property tax abatement valued at $290,389.
“We were pleased that Bowen wanted to make Indianapolis its home, and excited about that,” said Deputy Mayor Nick Weber, who leads economic development for Ballard.
“At the end of the day, we’re looking for Indianapolis to have a vibrant economy, with employment possibilities for our citizens. Companies that want to be a part of that, we’re interested in talking to.”
Indianapolis didn’t set out to poach Bowen Engineering, which declined to comment to IBJ because lease negotiations for its new location aren’t complete. Marion County economic-development officials began courting the company only after it couldn’t find new space near its current home to its liking.
And they opened talks only after Fishers granted a release letter—something counties routinely do when companies suggest they might move outside central Indiana.
The letters are necessary because officials in Indianapolis and the suburbs long have agreed that pilfer- ing companies within the region is a no-no.
Yet there has been a spate of such deals lately, most involving substantial incentives. In the last year, Indianapolis landed both Bowen and Haverstick Consulting. At the same time, it lost ASI Ltd., Freije Treatment Systems Inc., Klaisler Manufacturing Corp. and SMC Corporation of America.
But doling out incentives to reshuffle companies that already are in the region strikes some observers as a waste of precious tax dollars. More here.
Rutland seeks new marketing tagline
July 27, 2008
By Brent Curtis Staff Writer
Over the years, Rutland has been known as "The Crossroads," the heart of the "Marble Valley," a "City for Weddings" and, to the locals anyway, as "Rut Vegas."
Those nicknames have all been based on some part of the city's past or present – although a failed marketing plan and wishful thinking have been blamed for the wedding tagline. That slogan, trotted out in the early 1990s, never took hold and survives only in marketing studies.
Now city officials, regional development officials and an assortment of people interested in elevating the city and region to a prominent place on the tourism map are trying to come up with new word associations for Rutland.
The effort will eventually yield a new slogan that sums up the finest qualities of the city, its economic potential and the tourist attractions within easy driving distance.
And it will sum up those qualities in a statement short enough to fit on a bumper sticker.
That's the magic of branding.Branding shouldn't be confused with marketing, which looks for the right markets in which to sell a product. Nor is branding the equivalent of advertising which aggressively sells a product or service.
Branding aims to capture the heart and soul of a product and reduce it to something succinct and, hopefully, unforgettable.
The idea is that like designer jeans, Mercedes-Benz vehicles and Apple computers, whole communities, regions and even states can be summed up in a tagline and logo. It helps, of course, if that one-liner brings to mind the top selling points of a place. Think: "What happens in Vegas Stays in Vegas" or "I love New York.
"When it comes to branding, small cities like Rutland are automatically beind the eight ball because unlike Las Vegas and other major cities, they're relatively unknown to the world at large and lack enormous marketing and advertising budgets.
But the consultants who are helping Rutland with its re-branding efforts say the city has a lot going for it. More here.
By Brent Curtis Staff Writer
Over the years, Rutland has been known as "The Crossroads," the heart of the "Marble Valley," a "City for Weddings" and, to the locals anyway, as "Rut Vegas."
Those nicknames have all been based on some part of the city's past or present – although a failed marketing plan and wishful thinking have been blamed for the wedding tagline. That slogan, trotted out in the early 1990s, never took hold and survives only in marketing studies.
Now city officials, regional development officials and an assortment of people interested in elevating the city and region to a prominent place on the tourism map are trying to come up with new word associations for Rutland.
The effort will eventually yield a new slogan that sums up the finest qualities of the city, its economic potential and the tourist attractions within easy driving distance.
And it will sum up those qualities in a statement short enough to fit on a bumper sticker.
That's the magic of branding.Branding shouldn't be confused with marketing, which looks for the right markets in which to sell a product. Nor is branding the equivalent of advertising which aggressively sells a product or service.
Branding aims to capture the heart and soul of a product and reduce it to something succinct and, hopefully, unforgettable.
The idea is that like designer jeans, Mercedes-Benz vehicles and Apple computers, whole communities, regions and even states can be summed up in a tagline and logo. It helps, of course, if that one-liner brings to mind the top selling points of a place. Think: "What happens in Vegas Stays in Vegas" or "I love New York.
"When it comes to branding, small cities like Rutland are automatically beind the eight ball because unlike Las Vegas and other major cities, they're relatively unknown to the world at large and lack enormous marketing and advertising budgets.
But the consultants who are helping Rutland with its re-branding efforts say the city has a lot going for it. More here.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Website Users Study 2008
By Joel Burgess
The Whittaker Report
July 2008, Issue 77
This morning at the UEDA (Utility Economic Development Association) Summer Forum in Cleveland, Audrey Taylor, President of Chabin Concepts, Don Schjeldahl, Vice President and Director of Austin Consulting, and Mark James President of ED Solutions, Inc., lead a session entitled, New Standards for Economic Development Websites. The session aimed to provide insights about how economic development companies can make their websites more effective.
Chabin Concepts, Austin Consulting, and First Energy (Akron, Ohio) recently conducted a Websites Users Study to determine how site selectors, corporate real estate professionals, brokers, and other interested parties actually navigate the web to get their information. The goal of the study was to establish guidelines for developing a business recruitment website that meets audience expectations for content and functionality at all phases of the site location search process.
The study was implemented in two parts:
1) Exploratory user testing of four site selectors performing assigned tasks on economic development websites.
2) Online survey completed by 67 respondents, roughly half of whom were site selectors. All but two had worked on a business location project in the last year.
The final report is due out in the coming months; however, the executive summary can be viewed by clicking on the link below: If you are in economic development, real estate, and/or site selection you need to check this out - extremely useful information in building a web presence!http://www.utilityeda.com/Summer2008/SessionThu1.pdf
The Whittaker Report
July 2008, Issue 77
This morning at the UEDA (Utility Economic Development Association) Summer Forum in Cleveland, Audrey Taylor, President of Chabin Concepts, Don Schjeldahl, Vice President and Director of Austin Consulting, and Mark James President of ED Solutions, Inc., lead a session entitled, New Standards for Economic Development Websites. The session aimed to provide insights about how economic development companies can make their websites more effective.
Chabin Concepts, Austin Consulting, and First Energy (Akron, Ohio) recently conducted a Websites Users Study to determine how site selectors, corporate real estate professionals, brokers, and other interested parties actually navigate the web to get their information. The goal of the study was to establish guidelines for developing a business recruitment website that meets audience expectations for content and functionality at all phases of the site location search process.
The study was implemented in two parts:
1) Exploratory user testing of four site selectors performing assigned tasks on economic development websites.
2) Online survey completed by 67 respondents, roughly half of whom were site selectors. All but two had worked on a business location project in the last year.
The final report is due out in the coming months; however, the executive summary can be viewed by clicking on the link below: If you are in economic development, real estate, and/or site selection you need to check this out - extremely useful information in building a web presence!http://www.utilityeda.com/Summer2008/SessionThu1.pdf
KPMG: Atlanta ranks high as tax-friendly area to businesses
Atlanta placed third in KPMG International’s analysis of major American cities with tax structures favorable to businesses.
The “KPMG’s 2008 Competitive Alternatives: Focus on Tax” study puts San Juan, Puerto Rico at No. 1 with a total tax index of 46.6, which represents tax costs 53.4 percent below the U.S. national average of 100. San Juan was followed by Baltimore at 92.1 and Atlanta at 95.1. Atlanta also ranked ninth among the 35 largest international cities.
Rounding out the top five American cities are Tampa, Fla., (98.1) and Detroit (98.6).
"Cities across the United States recognize that attracting and retaining businesses of all sizes is important for a vibrant local economy," said Hartley Powell, national leader of the strategic relocation and expansion services practice at KPMG LLP, the U.S. member firm of KPMG International. "As the survey results indicate, certain cities are leaders in developing a tax environment that encourages business development, and tax costs are a key consideration in the site selection process."
KPMG said its study is a global comparison of the total tax burden in 102 cities throughout 10 countries, including corporate income taxes, capital taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, miscellaneous local business taxes and statutory labor costs.
The “KPMG’s 2008 Competitive Alternatives: Focus on Tax” study puts San Juan, Puerto Rico at No. 1 with a total tax index of 46.6, which represents tax costs 53.4 percent below the U.S. national average of 100. San Juan was followed by Baltimore at 92.1 and Atlanta at 95.1. Atlanta also ranked ninth among the 35 largest international cities.
Rounding out the top five American cities are Tampa, Fla., (98.1) and Detroit (98.6).
"Cities across the United States recognize that attracting and retaining businesses of all sizes is important for a vibrant local economy," said Hartley Powell, national leader of the strategic relocation and expansion services practice at KPMG LLP, the U.S. member firm of KPMG International. "As the survey results indicate, certain cities are leaders in developing a tax environment that encourages business development, and tax costs are a key consideration in the site selection process."
KPMG said its study is a global comparison of the total tax burden in 102 cities throughout 10 countries, including corporate income taxes, capital taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, miscellaneous local business taxes and statutory labor costs.
More from DCI’s “Winning Strategies” Survey: EDO Websites
Often, an executive’s first contact with an economic development organization is through the organization’s website. Regarding the likelihood of visiting an economic development organization’s website during their next site location search, 64% of respondents indicated a “4” or “5” on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is “Low” and 5 is “High.” In 2005, 65% gave this rating, while in 2002, only 39% did.
Location advisors are much more likely to visit an economic development organization’s website than the corporate respondents. A follow-up question asked respondents to indicate which features are most important to the usefulness of an economic development organization’s website. Twelve features that are commonly included in the design of an economic development organization’s website were presented:
• 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
“Information on available incentives” was selected by 82% of respondents, “demographic information” by 73% and “directory of available buildings & sites” by 49%.
The ordering of these features has remained consistent over time. Executives did register a decrease in the importance of a “directory of available buildings & sites.” In 2005, 64% of the survey audience rated this as an important resource compared with 49% in the current survey.
Comparing the three subgroups shows that executives from large companies find demographic information most useful, while for midsize company executives and location advisors, information on available incentives is most useful.
Economic development organizations must recognize that their website will frequently be the first place location decision-makers go to learn more about their community. Keeping the website attractive and full of useful, up-to-date information may help gain a community a spot on a short list.
The full report can be viewed at DCI’s website here.
Location advisors are much more likely to visit an economic development organization’s website than the corporate respondents. A follow-up question asked respondents to indicate which features are most important to the usefulness of an economic development organization’s website. Twelve features that are commonly included in the design of an economic development organization’s website were presented:
• 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
“Information on available incentives” was selected by 82% of respondents, “demographic information” by 73% and “directory of available buildings & sites” by 49%.
The ordering of these features has remained consistent over time. Executives did register a decrease in the importance of a “directory of available buildings & sites.” In 2005, 64% of the survey audience rated this as an important resource compared with 49% in the current survey.
Comparing the three subgroups shows that executives from large companies find demographic information most useful, while for midsize company executives and location advisors, information on available incentives is most useful.
Economic development organizations must recognize that their website will frequently be the first place location decision-makers go to learn more about their community. Keeping the website attractive and full of useful, up-to-date information may help gain a community a spot on a short list.
The full report can be viewed at DCI’s website here.
More from DCI’s “Winning Strategies” Survey: Corporate Executives’ Perceptions Of EDO's
Sixty-five percent of respondents indicated that they have worked closely with economic development organizations (either on the state, regional or local level) while working on a location decision. That breaks down as 62% of midsize company executives, 55% of large company executives and 94% of location advisors.
Generally, the respondents have favorable impressions of the economic development community. When respondents who have worked with economic development groups rate their overall impressions of the organizations on a scale of 1 to 5, economic development groups earn a mean score of 3.7.
Over time, corporate impressions of economic development groups have fluctuated slightly. In 2005, the mean score was 3.81, up from the mean in 2002, 3.54, the lowest rating in any survey year. In 1999, economic development organizations were given a rating of 3.77 and in 1996, the rating was 3.73.
In the 2008 survey, economic development organizations received an average score of 3.61 from large company executives, 3.71 from midsize company executives and 3.72 from location advisors.
To explore when the initial contact with an economic development group occurs during the site selection process, the survey asked respondents to choose from five options:
During the initial screening of all possible locations, to request preliminary data.
After we have developed a shortlist of potential communities, to request specific data or arrange site visits.
After the field has been narrowed to a few finalists, to negotiate incentive offers.
After a location has already been selected, for assistance in identifying a suitable building/lot.
We would not contact an economic development organization at any stage in a site location search.
The most frequent response was “After we have developed a shortlist of potential communities, to request specific data or arrange site visits” with 40% of those surveyed selecting this option.
This differs slightly from the pattern of responses when the question was asked, for the first time, in the 2005 version of the survey. We did not find evidence of a shift by site selectors to contact economic development organizations later in the selection process – a change which many in the industry anticipated.
There are differences among the three subgroups of the 2008 survey. Location advisors are more likely to utilize the services of an economic development organization (only 1% indicated they would not contact an economic development organization at any stage), and are more likely to contact one earlier in the site selection process.
Generally, the respondents have favorable impressions of the economic development community. When respondents who have worked with economic development groups rate their overall impressions of the organizations on a scale of 1 to 5, economic development groups earn a mean score of 3.7.
Over time, corporate impressions of economic development groups have fluctuated slightly. In 2005, the mean score was 3.81, up from the mean in 2002, 3.54, the lowest rating in any survey year. In 1999, economic development organizations were given a rating of 3.77 and in 1996, the rating was 3.73.
In the 2008 survey, economic development organizations received an average score of 3.61 from large company executives, 3.71 from midsize company executives and 3.72 from location advisors.
To explore when the initial contact with an economic development group occurs during the site selection process, the survey asked respondents to choose from five options:
During the initial screening of all possible locations, to request preliminary data.
After we have developed a shortlist of potential communities, to request specific data or arrange site visits.
After the field has been narrowed to a few finalists, to negotiate incentive offers.
After a location has already been selected, for assistance in identifying a suitable building/lot.
We would not contact an economic development organization at any stage in a site location search.
The most frequent response was “After we have developed a shortlist of potential communities, to request specific data or arrange site visits” with 40% of those surveyed selecting this option.
This differs slightly from the pattern of responses when the question was asked, for the first time, in the 2005 version of the survey. We did not find evidence of a shift by site selectors to contact economic development organizations later in the selection process – a change which many in the industry anticipated.
There are differences among the three subgroups of the 2008 survey. Location advisors are more likely to utilize the services of an economic development organization (only 1% indicated they would not contact an economic development organization at any stage), and are more likely to contact one earlier in the site selection process.
More from DCI’s “Winning Strategies” Survey: Importance of Factors in Business Location Decisions
In the 2008 survey, a new question probed the factors that are most important in a location decision. As executives weigh the strengths and weaknesses of potential locations, what makes them choose one area over the others? Eight factors (“Business-friendly government,” “Competitive incentives/tax exemptions,” “Efficient transportation systems,” “Labor,” “Overall operating costs,” “Proximity to funding sources/financial markets,” and “Quality of life”) were presented.
Respondents were asked to rate each on a 1 to 5 scale, where 1 equals “low” and 5 equals “high.” The factors were placed in order in the table below based on the mean score each earned.
The three survey subgroups (midsize and large companies; location advisors) prioritize these factors similarly. The biggest exceptions are that executives from midsize companies put “Quality of life” ahead of “Competitive incentives,” and “Efficient transportation systems” higher than “Overall operating costs,” while the other two groups rank “Competitive incentives” higher than “Quality of Life” and “Overall operating costs” higher than “Efficient transportation systems.”
Similarly, location advisors rank “Competitive incentives” higher than “Business-friendly government,” while the other two groups flip the order of these factors. The following chart shows how each subgroup rated each factor.
The full report can be viewed at DCI’s website here.
Respondents were asked to rate each on a 1 to 5 scale, where 1 equals “low” and 5 equals “high.” The factors were placed in order in the table below based on the mean score each earned.
The three survey subgroups (midsize and large companies; location advisors) prioritize these factors similarly. The biggest exceptions are that executives from midsize companies put “Quality of life” ahead of “Competitive incentives,” and “Efficient transportation systems” higher than “Overall operating costs,” while the other two groups rank “Competitive incentives” higher than “Quality of Life” and “Overall operating costs” higher than “Efficient transportation systems.”
Similarly, location advisors rank “Competitive incentives” higher than “Business-friendly government,” while the other two groups flip the order of these factors. The following chart shows how each subgroup rated each factor.
The full report can be viewed at DCI’s website here.
More from DCI’s “Winning Strategies” Survey: Effectiveness Of Established Marketing Techniques
A separate question asked by Development Counsellors, Inc. in their “Winning Strategies” survey (see below), they asked respondents to rate the effectiveness of seven typical marketing techniques used by economic development groups.
What is the most effective means of reaching corporate executives who may be considering a new site location? Respondents rated each technique (“Advertising,” “Direct Mail,” “Hosting Special Events,” “Internet/Web Site,” “Planned Visits to Corporate Executives,” “Public Relations/Publicity,” and “Telemarketing”) on a 1 to 5 scale, where 1 equals “poor” and 5 equals “excellent.” The order in the chart below is based on the percentage of
responses that were either a “4” or a “5.”
“Internet/website” soared to capture the highest rating among all economic development marketing tools for the first time, pointing to how essential a strong Internet presence is. The following chart shows the ranking of all the marketing techniques. Looking at responses over time, we see the steady rise of using the Internet as a marketing technique from 1996 to 2008.
The full report can be viewed at DCI’s website here.
What is the most effective means of reaching corporate executives who may be considering a new site location? Respondents rated each technique (“Advertising,” “Direct Mail,” “Hosting Special Events,” “Internet/Web Site,” “Planned Visits to Corporate Executives,” “Public Relations/Publicity,” and “Telemarketing”) on a 1 to 5 scale, where 1 equals “poor” and 5 equals “excellent.” The order in the chart below is based on the percentage of
responses that were either a “4” or a “5.”
“Internet/website” soared to capture the highest rating among all economic development marketing tools for the first time, pointing to how essential a strong Internet presence is. The following chart shows the ranking of all the marketing techniques. Looking at responses over time, we see the steady rise of using the Internet as a marketing technique from 1996 to 2008.
The full report can be viewed at DCI’s website here.
More from DCI’s “Winning Strategies” Survey: Influencing Corporate Decisions
Where do corporate executives get their information about business locations? Which marketing tactics can economic development officials use to influence target companies? What factors are most important in making a location decision?
For the fifth time, Development Counsellors, Inc.’s “Winning Strategies” survey asked corporate executives with site selection responsibilities to tell us which sources of information influence their perceptions of a community’s business climate. Respondents were asked to choose three from 13 possible responses: “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,” “online sources” (added in 1999) and “other.”
The top five responses are:
1. Dialogue with industry peers 61%
2. Articles in newspapers and magazines 53%
3. Business travel 43%
4. Meetings with economic development groups 32%
5. Online sources 28%
The top three influencers – “dialogue with industry peers,” “articles in newspapers and magazines” and “business travel” have remained remarkably consistent since the survey was first conducted in 1996. Executive perceptions are heavily influenced by what “other credible sources” say about a community (or what they observe in their own travels), rather than by what a community says about itself via controlled media.
According to DCI, economic development groups need to think creatively about how to apply these lessons to their own marketing programs. They offer two observations drawn from DCI’s experience in economic development marketing:
Stimulating greater “dialogue with industry peers” – essentially getting local business leaders to communicate with external colleagues about a region’s business advantages - remains a challenging but potentially blockbuster marketing opportunity. Successful ambassador programs initiated by local economic development groups have had some impact in this area. Growth in social media and online communications offers a new and inexpensive avenue for “peer-to-peer” dialogue.
A structured program to communicate with the business traveler offers a similar opportunity – particularly for larger communities with significant tourism assets. Creative approaches implemented by economic development organizations include training programs for taxi/limousine drivers, tailored materials in airport/hotel business centers and “strategic conferencing” – attracting specific meetings/conferences that will bring target executives to a community.
The full report can be viewed at DCI’s website here.
For the fifth time, Development Counsellors, Inc.’s “Winning Strategies” survey asked corporate executives with site selection responsibilities to tell us which sources of information influence their perceptions of a community’s business climate. Respondents were asked to choose three from 13 possible responses: “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,” “online sources” (added in 1999) and “other.”
The top five responses are:
1. Dialogue with industry peers 61%
2. Articles in newspapers and magazines 53%
3. Business travel 43%
4. Meetings with economic development groups 32%
5. Online sources 28%
The top three influencers – “dialogue with industry peers,” “articles in newspapers and magazines” and “business travel” have remained remarkably consistent since the survey was first conducted in 1996. Executive perceptions are heavily influenced by what “other credible sources” say about a community (or what they observe in their own travels), rather than by what a community says about itself via controlled media.
According to DCI, economic development groups need to think creatively about how to apply these lessons to their own marketing programs. They offer two observations drawn from DCI’s experience in economic development marketing:
Stimulating greater “dialogue with industry peers” – essentially getting local business leaders to communicate with external colleagues about a region’s business advantages - remains a challenging but potentially blockbuster marketing opportunity. Successful ambassador programs initiated by local economic development groups have had some impact in this area. Growth in social media and online communications offers a new and inexpensive avenue for “peer-to-peer” dialogue.
A structured program to communicate with the business traveler offers a similar opportunity – particularly for larger communities with significant tourism assets. Creative approaches implemented by economic development organizations include training programs for taxi/limousine drivers, tailored materials in airport/hotel business centers and “strategic conferencing” – attracting specific meetings/conferences that will bring target executives to a community.
The full report can be viewed at DCI’s website here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)