prepared for: visit jacksonville - amazon s3€¦ · prepared for: visit jacksonville prepared by:...

Jacksonville, FL Prepared for:

Visit Jacksonville

DestinationMAP

2016 Jacksonville Custom Study

Prepared for:

Visit Jacksonville

Prepared by:

STR

735 East Main Street

Hendersonville, TN 37075

615-824-8664

str.com For Additional Information Contact [email protected]

The STR/DestinationMAP suite of products is a publication of STR and is intended solely for use by paid subscribers.

Reproduction or distribution of the DestinationMAP materials, in whole or in part, without permission of STR is

prohibited and subject to legal action. Site licenses are available. Ownership, distribution and use of the

DestinationMAP suite of products is subject to the terms of the contract you have entered into with STR. STR does not

endorse any particular organization, and no strategic advice or marketing recommendation is intended or implied.

DestinationMAP Custom Report – Jacksonville 2016

STR, Inc. 2

2016 DESTINATIONMAP: Custom Study and Key Findings for Jacksonville

Information for this Custom Study has been collected through a survey conducted by STR on behalf of

Visit Jacksonville. The survey was design in a format similar to the baseline DestinationMAP 2015. A

sample of meeting planner prospects provided by Visit Jacksonville was used for this study. The results

compare Jacksonville to a competing set of destinations on a range of considerations used by meeting

planners as they decide on future locations for their meetings. The seven competitive markets selected

by Jacksonville are Charlotte, Louisville, Tampa, Savannah, Birmingham, Richmond and Daytona Beach.

Key Findings

Jacksonville faces low-to-moderate levels of competition for future meetings across the seven

markets selected with significant competition coming from outside these markets.

About one-third of meeting planners had held a meeting in Jacksonville during the past two years, and

about one in four planners had future plans for a meeting in the market. In comparison, about a

quarter of meeting planners held a meeting in Tampa in the last two years followed by Louisville. Over

half of the meeting planners in this study looked to alternative sites (outside the competitive sites listed)

for future meetings. All planners interviewed were active meeting planners. (More details in Section 2).

Destination Past

Meetings Future

Meetings

Jacksonville 30% 23%

Tampa 26 16

Louisville 16 7

Savannah 9 9

Charlotte 11 12

Daytona Beach 7 12

Birmingham 4 2

Richmond 4 4

None of the above 39 53

Almost all had either considered or held a major meeting in Jacksonville in the past two years.

About four out of five meeting planners had either considered or held a major meeting in Jacksonville in

the past two years. As mentioned above, a little under a third of meeting planners had held a 200+

attendee meeting in Jacksonville in the past two years. About half of planners have considered

Jacksonville but selected a different destination. One out of five meeting planners did not consider

Jacksonville for a major meeting. (More details in Section 6.1)


STR, Inc. 3

Orlando was the top alternative destination to Jacksonville.

Tampa and Atlanta came in 2nd and 3rd

behind Orlando as an alternative to

Jacksonville. Jacksonville meeting planners

are more regionalized in their site choices

and alternatives than has been observed

with other top 40 North American

destination markets. A clear majority of

respondents noted that they had also

considered an alternative Florida destination

to host their meeting, followed by locations

in the state of Georgia. (More details in

Section 6.3)

Tampa takes the top position over Jacksonville as a business meeting and convention site followed by

Charlotte.

Among the seven competitive markets,

Jacksonville rated as the third best

destination as a site for conventions and tied

for second as a business meeting site. Tampa

led both of these meeting categories, with

Charlotte outpacing Jacksonville as a site for

business meetings and tying Jacksonville in

second as a convention site.

As a vacation site, Savannah, Tampa, and

Daytona outpace Jacksonville. Across all

competitive destination rankings, Birmingham

consistently trails the competition.


STR, Inc. 4

Logistical considerations, specifically “willingness to provide concessions,” demonstrate a core

strength for Jacksonville among its competitive set.

Jacksonville scores well on

logistical considerations and these

include several considerations that

are most important to meeting

planners. Willingness to provide

concessions, moderate lodging

costs, good perceived value, along

with a short list of recreational

considerations show Jacksonville’s

comparative advantages. These

present a significant opportunity

for Jacksonville to differentiate

itself among the competition.

Challenges for Jacksonville exist

with weaker ratings in

environmental areas

(different/unique, popular place)

and recreation (good nightlife,

interesting (More details in

Section 4).


STR, Inc. 5

Meeting planner’s perceptions of Jacksonville’s conference center pose a serious challenge.

Jacksonville’s convention

center facility and location

attributes show

considerable signs of

weakness in comparison to

competition. Tampa earns

the most top finishes and is

followed by Charlotte.

Jacksonville’s convention

center generally performs in

the lower-to-middle portion

of its competitive field.

On the positive, supportive

convention bureau,

technology and reasonable

facility rental rates are

considerations where

perceptions on Jacksonville

convention facilities place it

near the top. (More details

in Section 4.9)

Jacksonville’s marketing exposure shows strengths in those channels considered to be most important

to meeting planners: websites and trade shows.

Over a third of meeting planners had used Visit Jacksonville’s website in the last two years, and a slightly

smaller proportion had also visited a Visit Jacksonville trade booth during the same time period. These

Custom Study respondents generally show higher exposure to a majority of marketing channels over

their competitors with exceptions being the internet and trade book ads. (More details in Section 5)


STR, Inc. 6

Table of Contents

Jacksonville’s DestinationMAP Custom Study has six sections with each beginning with a description of

contents and highlights for ease of use. This Table of Contents provides a detailed outline and overview

of the respective sections

2016 DESTINATIONMAP: Custom Study and Key Findings for Jacksonville .................................................. 2

Key Findings .............................................................................................................................................. 2

Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................................... 6

Section 1: Details on DestinationMAP and Jacksonville Custom Study Methodology ................................. 8

1.1: Background ........................................................................................................................................ 8

1.2: Research Approach .......................................................................................................................... 10

1.3: Questionnaire Design ....................................................................................................................... 11

1.4: Sample Characteristics ..................................................................................................................... 12

Section 2: Major Meetings .......................................................................................................................... 16

2.1: Familiarity with Nine Jacksonville Custom Cities/Destinations ....................................................... 16

2.2: Past Major Meetings ........................................................................................................................ 17

2.3: Planned Future Meetings ................................................................................................................. 18

Section 3: Overall Reputation ..................................................................................................................... 19

3.1: Convention Site, Business Meeting Site and Vacation Destination Ratings .................................... 19

3.2: Competitive Set Ratings Comparison .............................................................................................. 20

Section 4: Destination Image ...................................................................................................................... 23

4.1: Site Selection Criteria Relative Importance ..................................................................................... 24

4.2: Positive Travel Image ....................................................................................................................... 25

4.3: Competitive Set Performance: Positive Travel Image ..................................................................... 27

4.4: Deterrents to Site Selection ............................................................................................................. 28

4.5: Negative Travel Image ..................................................................................................................... 29

4.6: Competitive Set Performance: Negative Travel Image .................................................................... 31

4.7: Convention Center Selection Criteria Relative Importance ............................................................. 32

4.8: Convention Center Image ................................................................................................................ 33

4.9: Competitive Set Performance: Convention Center Image .............................................................. 36

Section 5: Marketing to Meeting Planners ................................................................................................. 37

Section 5.1: Exposure to Marketing Activity Summary .......................................................................... 37


STR, Inc. 7

Section 5.2: Exposure to Marketing Activity - Competitive Set .............................................................. 39

Section 6: Jacksonville Custom Questions .................................................................................................. 42

6.1: Jacksonville Venues Selected or Considered ................................................................................... 42

6.2: Alternative Destinations Selected .................................................................................................... 43

6.3: Reasons for Not Choosing Jacksonville ............................................................................................ 46

Additional Inquiries ..................................................................................................................................... 48

Appendix ..................................................................................................................................................... 49


STR, Inc. 8

Section 1: Details on DestinationMAP and Jacksonville Custom Study Methodology

DestinationMAP 2015 is the sixteenth in a continuing series of brand image/marketing studies

conducted among a national sample of major meeting and convention decision makers.

DestinationMAP covers 40 major destinations in North America and is conducted every two years.

Organization

1.1 Background

1.2 Research Approach

1.3 Questionnaire Design

1.4 Sample Characteristics

1.1: Background

The DestinationMAP report consists of two volumes which are useful in the development of marketing

and strategic plans. Volume I focuses on the site selection process. Volume II focuses on the market

position of the subscriber destination. Topics covered include brand image, market share and other

types of evaluative data. The Jacksonville 2016 Custom Study presents findings which allow a

destination to compare how their clients view them against norms developed in the main

DestinationMAP study.

DestinationMAP 2015 introduced several changes both in sampling and survey procedures, and in

questioning techniques from previous editions. The DestinationMAP survey sample was compiled using

past survey participants and collecting e-mail addresses from publicly available lists on the web. The

DestinationMAP 2015 survey was sent out electronically. The Jacksonville 2016 Custom Study was also

sent out electronically.

The DestinationMAP 2015 questionnaire was shortened to reduce respondent fatigue and overall drop-

out rates, thereby improving the information provided. In keeping with the normal pattern for this

report, a small number of questions were added or revised in response to emerging industry related

considerations (such as adding technology questions about the importance of sufficient Internet

bandwidth or free Wi-Fi) or to clarify or add further nuance to planner concerns. The Jacksonville 2016

Custom Study questionnaire was designed in a similar format to DestinationMAP 2015.


STR, Inc. 9

Meeting Locations Covered

DestinationMAP 2015 covers the following 40 major meeting markets in North America:

Table 1. Markets Included in DestinationMAP 2015

United States Cities

West South Central/Great Lakes East

Anaheim Atlanta Austin Baltimore

Denver Charlotte Chicago Boston

Hawaii Fort Lauderdale Dallas New York City

Las Vegas Jacksonville Houston Philadelphia

Los Angeles Louisville* Indianapolis Washington, D.C.

Phoenix Miami Minneapolis

Portland Nashville New Orleans

Sacramento Orlando San Antonio

Salt Lake City* Tampa* St. Louis*

San Diego

San Francisco

San Jose

Jacksonville

Seattle

Canadian Cities

Vancouver Toronto Montreal

*New to list in 2015

The Jacksonville 2016 Custom Study covers Jacksonville and the following eight markets selected by the

Visit Jacksonville CVB:

Table 2. Markets Included in Jacksonville 2016 Custom Study

Destinations

Jacksonville, FL

Charlotte, NC

Louisville, KY

Tampa, FL

Savannah, GA

Birmingham, AL

Richmond, VA

Daytona Beach, FL


STR, Inc. 10

1.2: Research Approach

DestinationMAP 2015 was conducted as a web-based survey in April 2015 among a national sample of

meeting planners based in the United States. The Custom Study was also conducted as a web-based

survey in March 2016.

Sampling Procedure

For the DestinationMAP 2015 study, a sample of meeting planners and decision makers was generated

through:

A sample of publically available industry contact directories

Previous respondents and databases of meeting planners from meeting planning publications

Web-based searches of meeting planner contacts

Table 3. Total Respondents

DestinationMAP 2015

Number of Completed Surveys

Total sample 623

Response rate 13.0%

For the Jacksonville 2016 Custom Study, a sample of meeting planners and decision makers were

provided by the Visit Jacksonville CVB. Meeting planners were screened to identify planners who

planned events of 200+ attendees and had an opinion about at least one of the eight markets tested.

The majority of meeting planners had opinions about at least four of the eight markets tested.

A total of 57 online interviews were completed. Potential respondents were reminded by email that

their participation would be rewarded with a $10 incentive. Responses to the Custom Study

questionnaire were closely monitored by STR staff. The survey was open for 20 days from March 16 –

April 5, 2016.

Table 4. Total Respondents

Jacksonville 2016 Custom Study

Sent Survey

Invites

Total After Bounces

and Unsubscribes/DQs

Number of Completed

Surveys Completion Rate

Total 784 682 57 8.4%


STR, Inc. 11

Lastly, some tables and figures may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding or the fact that the

question is a multiple response question where a planner may elect more than one option.

1.3: Questionnaire Design

Wording for core questions of the Jacksonville Custom Study survey was consistent with that used in

the main DestinationMAP 2015 study. The questionnaire’s use of lists/rating options were randomized

and rotated between respondents to minimize the possibility of selection/order bias in responses. In

addition to a common core set of DestinationMAP questions, Jacksonville also included an additional

series of custom question with their survey.


STR, Inc. 12

1.4: Sample Characteristics

An overall description of the Jacksonville Custom Study sample is presented in the following tables.

Employment Characteristics

Third-party meeting planning firms and associations represent the two largest employers of meeting

planners participating in the Jacksonville Custom Study. There are considerably fewer third party

meeting planning firms represented and more corporate meeting planners in the DestinationMAP 2015

sample.

Table 5. Employment of Respondents


Within your organization, would you

classify yourself as: Overall

DestinationMAP Sample

Third party meeting planning firm 33% 13% Association or society 25 29 Other Non-Profit 12 14 Corporation 9 27 Educational institution 9 6 Self-employed 7 10 Association management company (AMC) 4 NA Consulting firm 4 3 Other 4 8 Travel agency 4 2 Government 2 4 Accounting or law firm 0 1 Destination marketing organization (DMO) 0 0 Financial institution 0 1 Insurance company 0 2 Medical/health care provider 0 3 Scientific or high tech firm 0 1


STR, Inc. 13

Almost all respondents play a major role in researching and identifying venues for the meetings they are

responsible for planning. Just under one-third of meeting planners are the final decision makers.

In terms of the types of meetings planned, annual conventions are the top meeting types. National,

regional, corporate and seminars are also planned by a significant portion of planners.

Table 6. Description of Respondents


Within your organization, would you

classify yourself as: Overall

DestinationMAP

Sample

Identify and research venue 89% 84%

Operational 70 77

Primarily administrative 60 61

Final decision maker 32 42

Other 12 NA

Table 7. Type of Meetings Planned by Respondents


What type(s) of meetings do you plan

or influence? Overall

DestinationMAP

Sample

Annual conventions 77% 60%

National meetings 60 53

Regional meetings 47 51

Corporate meetings 37 53

Seminars 33 50

International meetings 28 31

Trade shows 26 35

Sales meetings 23 31

Travel incentive meetings 16 20

Other 11 NA


STR, Inc. 14

Jacksonville meeting planners are very experienced, less likely to hold a CMP certification and more

likely to plan their largest meeting involving greater than 1,000 attendees. A further segmentation

shows a good distribution across different meeting sizes with meetings of 1000-1,999 attendees earning

the top spot.

Table 8. Years as Meeting Planner


Q. How long have you been involved with planning meetings?

Time Frame Overall

0-2 Year 4%

3-5 Years 5

6-9 Years 21

10+ Years 70

Table 9. CMP Certification


Do you currently hold a CMP (or

similar) certification? Overall

DestinationMAP

Sample

CMP 26% 33%

Non-CMP 74 67

Table 10. Size of Largest Meeting Planned in Past Two Years


Q. In the past two years, how many people attended the largest meeting/event that you planned?

Largest Meeting Attendance Overall

Under 1,000 35%

1,000+ 65

300 – 499 12%

500 – 849 18

850 – 999 5

1,000 - 1,999 32

2,000 - 4,999 14

5,000 - 9,999 9

10,000+ 11%


STR, Inc. 15

The dominant age grouping of Custom Study meeting planners is in the 50+ category. Southern and

Midwest states dominate in terms of residence.

Table 11. Age of Meeting Planner


What is your age? Overall

20-29 4%

30-39 9

40-49 21

50+ 61

Preferred to not answer 5

Table 12. State Residence of Meeting Planner


Only showing states with 4% or more overall

State Overall

South 56%

Florida 19

Texas 9

Georgia 7

Oklahoma 5

Alabama 4

District of Columbia 4

South Carolina 4

Midwest 26

Minnesota 9

Illinois 4

Indiana 4

Kansas 4

Michigan 4

Northeast 11

New York 4

Pennsylvania 4

West 5


STR, Inc. 16

Section 2: Major Meetings

The following section provides an overview of the meetings market from the Jacksonville Custom Study.

This section is intended as a description of the state of the meetings market relative to Jacksonville’s

position.

Organization

2.1 Familiarity with Nine Jacksonville Custom Study Cities/Destinations

2.2 Past Major Meetings

2.3 Planned Future Meetings

2.1: Familiarity with Nine Jacksonville Custom Cities/Destinations

Meeting planners were asked to indicate whether they were familiar enough with each of the eight

locations covered in the Jacksonville Custom Study to provide a reliable opinion as a meeting

destination.

A near majority of meeting planners stated that they have visited or are familiar with Jacksonville,

Tampa, Louisville, Savannah and Charlotte. Less than a third of meeting planners had any familiarity with

Birmingham and Richmond. The overall percentage of respondents who have visited or are familiar with

any particular destination ranged from 23% up to 75%.

In the national DestinationMAP 2015 Study, Tampa and Charlotte earned the top spots. Tampa’s strong

position is confirmed in the Jacksonville Custom Study while Charlotte drops behind Louisville.

Table 13. Familiarity with Nine Markets: Jacksonville 2016 Custom Study

Q. Select all destinations for which you can provide a general impression as a meeting destination site.

Overall

City Custom DestinationMAP

Jacksonville 75% 6%

Tampa 63 16

Louisville 53 7

Savannah 49 -

Charlotte 47 15

Daytona Beach 40 -

Birmingham 28 -

Richmond 23 -


STR, Inc. 17

2.2: Past Major Meetings

Respondents to the study were asked to indicate whether they had held a major convention, trade

show, conference or seminar in the past two years at each of the nine locations covered by the

Jacksonville Custom Study. A major meeting was defined as a meeting with 200 or more participants.

Affirmative answers ranged from a low of 4% for Richmond and Birmingham to a high of 30% of

planners who held a major meeting in Jacksonville. The number who had held past meeting in Tampa (at

26%) was almost as high as Jacksonville.

Two-fifths of custom study respondents had not held a past 2-year major meeting in any of the

competitive set destinations. Section 6.2 of this report shows Orlando and Atlanta as the top meeting

spots among Jacksonville potential meeting planners.

Table 14. Held Major Meeting in Past Two Years (200+ participants): Jacksonville 2016 Custom Study

Q. In the past 2 years, have you held a major (200+ attendees) convention/trade show/conference/seminar in any

of the destinations below? (Select all that apply)

Overall

City Percent Rank

Jacksonville 30% 1

Tampa 26 2

Louisville 16 3

Charlotte 11 4

Savannah 9 5

Daytona Beach 7 6

Birmingham 4 7

Richmond 4 7

None of the above 39 -


STR, Inc. 18

2.3: Planned Future Meetings

The table below shows the client-identified competitor destinations that meeting planners have

selected for major meetings in the next two years. Overall, Jacksonville earns the top spot followed by

Tampa, Charlotte, and Daytona Beach respectively.

It is notable that a significant proportion of meeting planners indicated that their organization(s) would

not be holding future meetings at any of these listed sites. It is possible that the sample of meeting

planners for the Custom Study may be holding major meetings less regularly than observed in the

national DestinationMAP2015 cohort of meeting planners. Results presented in Section 6.2 suggest that

a significant proportion of planners may be considering Orlando and Atlanta (among others) as a

location for a future meeting.

Table 15. Where Major Meetings Will Be Held in Next Two Years (200+ participants): Jacksonville 2016 Study

Q. In the next 2 years, will you hold a major (200+ attendees) convention/trade show/conference/seminar in any of

the destinations below? (Select all that apply)

Overall

City Percent Rank

Jacksonville 23% 1

Tampa 16 2

Charlotte 12 3

Daytona Beach 12 3

Savannah 9 5

Louisville 7 6

Richmond 4 7

Birmingham 2 8

None of the above 53 -


STR, Inc. 19

Section 3: Overall Reputation

Meeting planners and decision makers were asked in the Jacksonville Custom Study and in 2015

DestinationMAP to rate destinations as convention sites and for business meetings. Detailed findings,

as they relate to Jacksonville and the eight destinations in both the Jacksonville Custom Study and

DestinationMAP 2015, are provided in the following section.

Overview

3.1 Convention Site, Business Meeting Site and Vacation Destination Ratings

3.2 Competitive Set Ratings Comparison

3.1: Convention Site, Business Meeting Site and Vacation Destination Ratings

Meeting planners rated destinations on a ten-point scale as a convention site, as a site for business

meetings, and as a vacation site. The ratings for Jacksonville are presented in the table below. For

comparison, the average ratings across the Custom Study and all 40 DestinationMAP destinations for

each segment are also included.

Jacksonville exceeds the average ratings for all custom destinations. Average scores in the Custom study

surpassed the results from the national DestinationMAP 2015 sample, a not unexpected result given the

CVB-provided contacts utilized for this study. The greatest gains in perception scores from the national

sample to the Custom Study sample fell on the convention center. In other words, contacts already

identified by Jacksonville rate the convention center significantly higher than meeting planner contacts

(who indicated familiarity with Jacksonville) sourced nationally.

Table 16. Average Rating as a Convention, Business Meeting Site and Vacation Site: Jacksonville Custom Study

Rated on a 1-10 scale where 1=”poor” and 10=”excellent”

Jacksonville Custom Study

Custom Average 8 Destinations

Jacksonville Average DestinationMAP

Average 40 DestinationMAP

Convention site 7.6 7.2 6.6 8.0 Business meeting site 8.0 7.5 7.8 8.1 Vacation site 7.7 7.2 7.3 7.6


STR, Inc. 20

3.2: Competitive Set Ratings Comparison

The graphic below displays Jacksonville’s position across each of the rating segments, in direct

comparison to Jacksonville’s selected competitive set. It is important to note that the information in the

below chart is same as the original 2015 DestinationMAP Volume II study, and draws its results from a

national sample of meeting planners who were familiar with Jacksonville market.


STR, Inc. 21

The graphic below shows the rankings within Jacksonville’s competitive set for each type of destination

rating. In contrast to the previous graphic, the ratings are derived directly from sampled meeting

planners surveyed in the Jacksonville Custom Study. Jacksonville shows a third place position as a

convention site and ties for second (with Charlotte) as a site for business meeting. Tampa takes the top

spot as a convention site and as a site for conducting business meetings. Jacksonville landed in the

middle of the pack position as a vacation site. Birmingham is consistently in last place across all areas.


STR, Inc. 22

Table 17. Custom Study Rating as a Convention Site


Jacksonville Custom Study Average Rank Tampa 8.3 1 Charlotte 7.9 2 Jacksonville 7.6 3 Louisville 7.4 4 Savannah 7.2 5 Richmond 6.7 6 Daytona Beach 6.4 7 Birmingham 6.2 8

Table 18. Custom Study Rating as a Business Meeting Site


Jacksonville Custom Study Average Rank Tampa 8.6 1 Charlotte 8.0 2 Jacksonville 8.0 3 Savannah 7.8 4 Louisville 7.4 5 Richmond 7.0 6 Daytona Beach 6.5 7 Birmingham 6.3 8

Table 19. Custom Study Rating as a Vacation Site


Jacksonville Custom Study Average Rank Savannah 8.9 1 Tampa 8.6 2 Daytona Beach 8.1 3 Jacksonville 7.7 4 Charlotte 6.6 5 Louisville 6.5 6 Richmond 6.1 7 Birmingham 4.9 8


STR, Inc. 23

Section 4: Destination Image

A major component of DestinationMAP and the Jacksonville Custom Study is the evaluation of

destinations on a set of image attributes, including travel image, negative travel image and conference

or resort hotel image. Meeting planners evaluated destinations on each attribute. They were also

asked to indicate how important each attribute is to their site selection process.

Throughout this section the image perceptions of a destination are indexed against a 5-city

DestinationMAP average. For example, if a destination is rated favorably on a characteristic by 60% of

respondents and the DestinationMAP average for that characteristic is 40%, then the destination will

have an index of 60/40 (*100) or 150. When presented graphically, positive image and convention

center indexes are centered at 100. Generally, an index of 80 to 120 is considered to be normal, or close

to average.

The following section provides detailed findings of Jacksonville’s image among meeting planners,

regularly breaking the attributes on which Jacksonville is evaluated into broad categories to show areas

in which a destination excels or falters.

Overview

4.1 Site Selection Criteria Relative Importance

4.2 Positive Travel Image

4.3 Competitive Set Performance: Positive Travel Image

4.4 Deterrents to Site Selection

4.5 Negative Travel Image

4.6 Competitive Set Performance: Negative Travel Image

4.7 Convention Center Selection Criteria Relative Importance

4.8 Convention Center Image

4.9 Competitive Set Performance: Convention Center Image


STR, Inc. 24

4.1: Site Selection Criteria Relative Importance

As demonstrated in Volume I of DestinationMAP 2015, image criteria can be split into three categories:

logistical, environmental and recreational considerations. An organization is not likely to select a

meeting site that does not meet its logistical requirements. Environmental and recreational

considerations are also very important and can be the differentiating factors in the choice between two

destinations of similar logistical appeal. The chart below demonstrates the considerations that are

considered “very important” for meeting planners.


STR, Inc. 25

4.2: Positive Travel Image

The graph below provides details on the travel image profile of Jacksonville. Above average ratings are

noted in blue while below average ratings are noted in red.

Jacksonville stands well above the Custom Study norm for the majority of environmental and

logistical considerations.

Strongest scores go to Jacksonville’s perceived willingness to provide concessions and moderate

lodging costs (both logistical concerns). The weakest marks fall on being considered a “popular

place,” “different/unique,” interesting culture” and “good nightlife.”


STR, Inc. 26

Below are the percentages from which the charted indices on the previous page were derived.

Table 20. Travel Image Site Considerations

Total Percent of Respondents that Consider Characteristic Applies to Jacksonville

Q. Please check any quality that applies to each location as a travel destination?

Type of Consideration Consideration

Percent Indicating Attribute Applies

Environmental

Wonderful climate 72%

Scenic setting/scenery 58

Clean / attractive place 56

Family oriented 53

Friendly residents 46

Low crime rate / safe 35

Different / unique 25

Open minded community 25

Popular place 25

Logistical

Moderate lodging costs 74%

Good value for the money 51

Convenient airline service 47

Adequate number of hotel rooms 44

Willing to provide concessions 44

Easy for delegates to get to 42

Upscale hotels 42

Inexpensive to get to 35

Good local transportation 25

Recreational

Casual and/or affordable dining options 72%

Good outdoor recreation 67

Variety of things to do 56

Pre and post event tourism opportunities 54

Ease of access to nature 53

Quality of food 49

Upscale food options 46

Good shopping 35

Interesting culture/ history/museums 28

Good nightlife 26


STR, Inc. 27

4.3: Competitive Set Performance: Positive Travel Image

This chart compares Jacksonville’s travel image to the competitive set of destinations: Charlotte,

Louisville, Savannah and Tampa. Jacksonville outperforms the competitive set on four considerations –

moderate lodging costs, casual/affordable dining options, good value, and willingness to provide

concession. On all but “good value for the money,” Jackson clearly outpaces the competition.

Jacksonville trails the competitive set on good nightlife, interesting culture and being different/unique.

Tampa and, secondarily, Savannah dominate the positive site image considerations.

Jacksonville’s second place standing on two customized considerations – easy access to nature

and open minded community – is notable. Savannah lands the top position on nature access

while Tampa tops Jacksonville on perceptions of “open minded community.”


STR, Inc. 28

4.4: Deterrents to Site Selection

Meetings planners generally consider the positive traits of a destination meeting location once they

have gotten past a range of factors that could rule out a meeting location. The chart below from

DestinationMAP 2015 (Volume 1) demonstrates that there are seven different considerations identified

by at least half of our meeting planner sample as being “very likely” considerations that could rule out a

potential meeting site.


STR, Inc. 29

4.5: Negative Travel Image

It should be noted that on many negative image characteristics, the difference between Jacksonville and

its competitive set average is only one to three percentage points. Given the sample size and the degree

of variation, these figures are not statistically significant. Still, overall negative trends are evident

through visuals provided below.

The standout negative image differentiators between Jacksonville and its competitive set include high

crime rate, lack of public transportation, fading/declining popularity and the perception that there is

nothing to do there.


STR, Inc. 30

Below are the percentages behind the chart on the previous pages.

Table 21. Likely Deterrents to Jacksonville Site Selection

Total Percent of Respondents that Consider a Characteristic Applies to Jacksonville

Q. Please check any quality that applies to each location as a travel destination?



Cost

Excessive room or sales tax 5%

Unwilling to make financial/other concessions 5%

Exorbitant costs 2%

Environmental

Lack of public transportation 21%

Inconvenient airline service 18%

High crime rate 12%

Racial tension 5%

Unpleasant weather 4%

Unsanitary conditions 4%

Unfriendly local people 2%

Inappropriate for serious business meetings 0%

Other

Nothing to do there 11%

Aging hotels 9%

Fading / declining popularity 9%

Narrow minded community 4%

Recent bad publicity 0%


STR, Inc. 31

4.6: Competitive Set Performance: Negative Travel Image

The graphic below presents negative destination image characteristics of Jacksonville and its

competitive set of destinations (Charlotte, Louisville, Savannah and Tampa). Jacksonville gets the top

negative position on nine of sixteen attributes. A high perceived rate of crime and the perceived lack of

convenient airline service are two key variables that planners indicate are very likely to cause them to

rule out a meeting site; Jacksonville is placed below the majority of competitors for these two attributes.


STR, Inc. 32

4.7: Convention Center Selection Criteria Relative Importance

In DestinationMAP 2015 meeting planners were asked to evaluate the importance of specific attributes

in the selection of a convention center. The image below presents the convention center attributes and

the percentage of meeting planners who rated the attribute as “very important” in convention center

selection. Cost, facilities, support and technology considerations occupy the top five most important

spots, although the different types of considerations are distributed evenly across the board. This is

identical to what was presented in Volume I.


STR, Inc. 33

4.8: Convention Center Image

An image profile of Jacksonville’s Prime F. Osborn III Convention Center conference center is presented

below. Perceptions associated with the conference center are classified into five categories: cost,

facilities, location, support and technology.

Planners’ feedback on most convention center related considerations provides evidence to major

challenges for Jacksonville. Jacksonville is perceived as weaker than its competitors in the facilities,

location, and support areas. In contrast, technology considerations are all above average and certain

individual attributes such as reasonable facility rental rates and a supportive convention bureau surpass

the competitive set’s norm.


STR, Inc. 34

Below are the reported percentages behind the competitive set indexed charts on the previous page.

Table 22.

Convention Center Considerations

Total Percent of Respondents that Consider Characteristic Applies to Jacksonville’s Convention Center Q. Please check any quality that applies to each destination’s conference/resort hotels?



Cost

Casual and/or affordable dining options 12%

Reasonable facility rental rates 11

Free Wi-Fi 9

Reasonable exhibit setup & service costs 5

Facilities

Adequate hotel rooms nearby 18%

Adequate breakout rooms 12

Adequate seating for largest sessions 11

Adequate trade exhibit facilities 11

Sufficient exhibit space 9

Good banquet facilities 5

Location

Near downtown/activity 14%

Convention hotel near meeting venue 12

Upscale hotels near convention ctr. 11

Walkability of area around convention ctr. 7

Convenient offsite food options 4

Upscale food options near convention ctr. 4

Support

Supportive convention bureau 23%

Supportive convention center staff 12

Menu flexibility 11

Excellent reputation 9

Quality on-site food 7

Labor crew easy to work with 5

Technology Fast Internet / sufficient bandwidth 12%

State-of-the-art technology 7


STR, Inc. 35

As a methodological note, Custom Study perception scores on convention centers were measured

across all survey meeting planners (n=57) including those who may have indicated they “did not know”

a convention center. The number and percentage of respondents rating each convention center are

presented below. The two most familiar convention centers among Custom Study respondents are

those located in Tampa (with 44% indicating familiarity) and in Charlotte (42% familiar).

Table 23. Proportion of Meeting Planners Familiar with a Destination Convention Center

Q. Check as many qualities as apply for each convention center to the best of your knowledge. If unfamiliar,

please mark “Don’t know.”

Count of Custom Convention Center Respondents Percent Familiar

Prime F. Osborn III Convention Center (Jacksonville) 20 35%

Charlotte Convention Center (Charlotte) 24 42%

Kentucky International Convention Center (Louisville) 22 39%

Savannah International Trade & Convention Center (Savannah) 19 33%

Tampa Convention Center (Tampa) 25 44%


STR, Inc. 36

4.9: Competitive Set Performance: Convention Center Image

The visual below demonstrates perception scores for Jacksonville’s convention center in comparison to

its competing markets’ convention centers. Convention centers located in Tampa and Charlotte

dominate the competitive set. Jacksonville lands no higher than a runner-up position on any one

consideration and generally falls in the middle or lower-half of the pack. Convention center facilities and

location attributes of the center show considerable weakness in comparison to the competition.

On the other hand side, perceptions as a supportive convention bureau, reasonable facility rental rates

and fast/sufficient bandwidth are considerations where the Prime F. Osborn III Convention Center ranks

favorably.


STR, Inc. 37

Section 5: Marketing to Meeting Planners

Meeting planners were asked in DestinationMAP 2015 and the Jacksonville Custom Study to indicate

their experience with a destination’s marketing efforts in the past 24 months. Detailed findings, as they

relate to Jacksonville and the seven destinations in the Jacksonville Custom Study and Jacksonville in

DestinationMAP 2015, are provided in the following section.

Overview

5.1 Exposure to Marketing Activity: Summary

5.2 Exposure to Marketing Activity: Top Destinations

Section 5.1: Exposure to Marketing Activity Summary

For the eight destinations covered in the Jacksonville Custom Study, respondents were asked whether

they had been exposed to various marketing channels. This exposure information was compared to how

important meeting planners consider these channels when selecting a geographic meeting site. In the

table below, the results of the national DestinationMAP 2015 study are compared to the results from

the Jacksonville Custom Study, both of which include Jacksonville’s specific exposure percentages

compared to the average for all destinations covered in the respective surveys.

An important methodological note in comparing results of the DestinationMAP with Custom Study

results is that the two studies used two different time frame references for meeting planners’ exposure

to media. The main DestinationMAP study asked for experience in the previous 12 months with Custom

Study planners being asked for their experience from the last two years. With a longer time window in

the custom study one would expect the level of marketing activity to be higher compared to the national

study.

Even with adjusting for different time frames, the results of the Jacksonville Custom Study are different

from the marketing exposure covered in DestinationMAP. In the Jacksonville Custom Study

respondents are equally likely to be visit the website or be called on by bureau staff and less likely to see

internet ads or view trade books advertisements compared to DestinationMAP 2015.

Comparing Jacksonville to the average for all destinations in the custom study shows Jacksonville

consistently rated higher in terms of exposure to all marketing activities except trade book and internet

ads. Because the respondents in the custom study came from a Jacksonville meeting planner list, it is

not surprising that custom study respondents generally show higher exposure to these marketing

activities compared to competition.


STR, Inc. 38

Table 24. Exposure to Marketing Activity

Q. Below are different types of marketing that a destination might use. Check all that applies to your experience with

each destination in the past 2 years. If not exposed to any marketing materials from a destination, check "none."

Jacksonville Custom Percent

Average 8 Custom Percent

Jacksonville DestinationMAP

Percent *

Average 40 DestinationMAP

Percent*

Visited destination website 37% 22% 34% 31%

Called on by bureau staff 37 21 38 26

Visited trade show booth 32 25 34 48

Received direct mail 25 16 31 31

Saw trade book ads 18 20 38 31

Saw internet ads 4 8 39 30 * The original DestinationMAP 2015 study asked for experience within the past 12 months.

As presented in DestinationMAP 2015 Volume II for Jacksonville, “destination website” and “trade show

booth” are highlighted as having both significant exposure and high importance. Other activities are also

important but to a lesser degree. Special consideration should be given to maintaining a quality website

and being present at trade booths because of the importance meeting planners place on these channels.

Table 25. Exposure to and Importance of Marketing Activity

Jacksonville Custom Results with DestinationMAP Importance

Q. Please indicate all that apply relative to your experience with Jacksonville in the last 2 years.

Q. Please indicate the information sources important to you in selecting a geographic meeting site.

Category

Custom Jacksonville

Exposure

DestinationMAP Rated “Very Important”

DestinationMAP Rated “Very + Somewhat

Important”

Visited destination website 37% 45% 88%

Called on by Bureau staff 37 11 59

Visited trade show booth 32 24 74

Received direct mail 25 6 47

Saw trade book ads 18 5 46

Saw Internet ads 4 8 46

Note: green shading indicates the top two most important marketing activities


STR, Inc. 39

Section 5.2: Exposure to Marketing Activity - Competitive Set

The series of tables below show a breakdown of marketing activity for each city in Jacksonville’s

competitive set, separated by each different type of media. Rankings are also shown in the rightmost

columns. Within each of the following tables, the competitive set is listed in order by the destination

with the highest overall exposure (for each type of media category) at the top. The tables for each type

of media are provided in the order of the most important marketing media first, per DestinationMAP

2015 Volume 2 results; in this case “visited destination website” is the most important.

Table 26. Exposure to Marketing Activity: Visited destination website

Q. Please indicate all that apply relative to your experience with these destinations in the past two years.

Destination Overall Rank

Jacksonville 37% 1

Tampa 33 2

Charlotte 28 3

Savannah 23 4

Louisville 19 5

Birmingham 12 6

Daytona Beach 11 7

Richmond 11 7

Table 27. Exposure to Marketing Activity: Visited trade show booth


Tampa 37% 1

Jacksonville 32 2

Daytona Beach 30 3

Louisville 26 4

Charlotte 25 5

Birmingham 21 6

Savannah 18 7

Richmond 16 8


STR, Inc. 40

Table 28.

Exposure to Marketing Activity: Called on by bureau staff


Jacksonville 37% 1

Louisville 32 2

Tampa 30 3

Daytona Beach 19 4

Birmingham 18 5

Charlotte 16 6

Savannah 16 6

Richmond 5 8

Table 29. Exposure to Marketing Activity: Received direct mail


Jacksonville 25% 1

Tampa 25% 1

Louisville 19% 3

Daytona Beach 18% 4

Savannah 16% 5

Charlotte 11% 6

Birmingham 9% 7

Richmond 9% 7

Table 30. Exposure to Marketing Activity: Saw trade book ads


Tampa 28% 1

Louisville 26% 2

Birmingham 21% 3

Charlotte 21% 3

Daytona Beach 21% 3

Jacksonville 18% 6

Savannah 18% 6

Richmond 7% 8


STR, Inc. 41

Table 31. Exposure to Marketing Activity: Saw internet ads


Tampa 14% 1

Charlotte 12% 2

Savannah 12% 2

Daytona Beach 9% 4

Birmingham 7% 5

Louisville 5% 6

Jacksonville 4% 7

Richmond 2% 8


STR, Inc. 42

Section 6: Jacksonville Custom Questions

For the custom portion of the study, Jacksonville provided STR with a range of pertinent topics to cover

in this customized study. Detailed findings are provided in the following section.

Overview

6.1 Jacksonville Venues Selected or Considered

6.3 Alternative Destinations Selected

6.4 Reasons for Not Choosing Jacksonville

6.1: Jacksonville Venues Selected or Considered

About four of five meeting planners had either considered or held a major meeting in Jacksonville in the

past two years. A little under a third of meeting planners had held a 200+ attendee meeting in

Jacksonville in the past two years with about half of planners having considered Jacksonville but selected

a different destination. One out of five meeting planners did not consider Jacksonville for a major

meeting.

Table 32. Major (200+ attendee) Meetings - Jacksonville 2016 Custom Study

Overall

Considered But Selected a Different Destination 49%

Held Major Meeting in Jacksonville in Past Two Years 30

Have Not Considered Jacksonville for a Major Meeting 21

Of the 30% of meeting planners who held a meeting in Jacksonville in the past two years, the Hyatt

Regency Riverfront emerged as dominant choice with roughly three-quarters of this subset of planners

selecting this as their meeting venue. The remaining portion of meetings held was roughly spread

among four other area venues (Renaissance World Golf Village, Jacksonville Veterans Memorial Arena,

Omni Jacksonville Hotel and Sawgrass Marriot Golf Resort & Spa).


STR, Inc. 43

6.2: Alternative Destinations Selected

All Jacksonville Custom Study planners were asked to provide a list of up to three alternative

destinations they had considered in lieu of holding a meeting in Jacksonville. Alternative destinations

were diverse, covering meeting sites in 23 states and Canada. The top single market most mentioned as

an alternative to Jacksonville was Orlando, with second place going to Tampa. Orlando was also

mentioned as the top destination for Jacksonville’s lost meeting business (see Table 34).

A range of 53 competition destinations were identified by planners for this survey. This provides some

evidence that Jacksonville finds itself in an arguably more competitive meetings market position than

other top North American destinations. Most top North American destination markets are competing

directly against other top markets for meeting business. Jacksonville is competing against a larger

competitive set that goes beyond the top 40 markets. Table 36 in the Appendix provides a complete

listing of meeting site alternatives to Jacksonville.

Table 33. Top Alternative Destinations Considered to Jacksonville – Jacksonville 2016 Custom Study

In the past two years, what were the top three alternative destinations that you considered as a meeting site instead

of Jacksonville?

City Overall Orlando 53% Tampa 32 Atlanta 28 Savannah 12 St. Augustine 9 Charlotte 7 Daytona 7 Ft. Lauderdale 7 Las Vegas 7

*Note: Respondent may have identified up to 3 locations.

Full list displayed in appendix.


STR, Inc. 44

Jacksonville’s Custom study planners are more regionalized in their site choices and alternatives for than

we have observed with other top 40 North American destination markets. A clear majority of

respondents noted that they had also considered an alternative Florida destination to host their

meeting, followed by locations in the state of Georgia (with 23 mentions).


STR, Inc. 45

Jacksonville Custom Study planners who did not hold a meeting in Jacksonville were asked to provide a

list of up to three alternative destinations where they held meetings. Orlando again leads the pack

followed by Tampa.

Table 34.

Destinations to Which Jacksonville Lost Business – Jacksonville 2016 Custom Study

In the past two years, what were the top three alternative destinations that you considered as a meeting site instead of

Jacksonville? Which (if any) of these destinations did you [ultimately] select to host a meeting? (Enter all that apply)

City

% of Respondents not Selecting Jacksonville

(n=40)

Orlando 48% Tampa 18 Chicago 10 Miami 10 Atlanta 8 Daytona Beach 5 Denver 5 Ft. Lauderdale 5 Las Vegas 5 Louisville KY 5 San Antonio 5 Savannah 5


STR, Inc. 46

6.3: Reasons for Not Choosing Jacksonville

Receiving a better incentive package from another destination and the inability to use a single property

for meeting/event room block were the leading causes of planners selecting an alternative destination

to Jacksonville for their upcoming meetings/events. The Jacksonville CVB may wish to concentrate its

coordination efforts as well as marketing/sales efforts on those areas where it can be most effective in

converting “lost business” to booked clients. Of note, the CVB may have some sway in offering better

meeting packages than its competition (38% of lost business) or in influencing clients’ decision-makers

(30% preferred an alternative) or board members (25% wanted a different destination) to choose

Jacksonville for their next meeting.

Table 35. Reasons for Not Choosing Jacksonville – Jacksonville 2016 Custom Study

For what reason(s) did you decide against booking in Jacksonville? Please select all that apply below:

Did Not Choose

Jacksonville

Alternatives

Got a better package from another destination 38%

Preferred a different location 30

Board members wanted a different destination 25

Not in our standard rotation 15

Looking for a different experience 3

Availability

Prefer single property headquarters for our room block 35%

Meeting space was not available when we needed it 25

Limited hotel offerings 20

Lacking adequate meeting facilities 18

Convention center was not available 3

Logistics

Difficult for attendees to get to 23%

Poor local transportation 8

Costs

Hotel rates were too high 18%

Cost of meeting space 10

General

No incentives offered 10%

Not a place I would consider 3

Past experience 3

Poor reputation 3

Other contractual obligations 3

Other - Please specify 25


STR, Inc. 47

Other verbatim reasons for selecting an alternative destination to Jacksonville are provided below:

CVB was difficult to work with, most CVB's assist you with the housing package, center proposal,

etc. The Jacksonville CVB did not.

Client's budget choice

We met in JAX 2012, low attendance

I am booking in 2018

Not sure if they have ever bid on the RFPs sent out

Not enough to do downtown, downtown didn't feel entirely safe.

Have not yet selected a city for 2018

Only know Jacksonville as the home of the Florida/Georgia game

I don’t know much about Jacksonville

North - we want warmer


STR, Inc. 48

Additional Inquiries

The DestinationMAP data, when coupled with STR data, provide a comprehensive view of meetings to

representatives of the hospitality industry. With new techniques and ways of segmenting and

visualizing the data there are opportunities to go beyond the topics and details provided in this report.

For more specific insights into the nature of the meetings market, the performance of specific meetings

in a destination and the preferences of meeting planners, contact us:

STR, Inc.

615-824-8664

[email protected]

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Use of DestinationMAP

The STR/DestinationMAP suite of products is a publication of STR and is intended solely for use by paid subscribers.

Reproduction or distribution of the DestinationMAP materials, in whole or in part, without permission of STR is prohibited and

subject to legal action. Site licenses are available. Ownership, distribution and use of the DestinationMAP suite of products is

subject to the terms of the contract you have entered into with STR. STR does not endorse any particular organization, and no

strategic advice or marketing recommendation is intended or implied.

mailto:[email protected]


STR, Inc. 49

Appendix

Table 36. Alternative Destinations to Jacksonville (All) – Jacksonville 2016 Custom Study

In the past two years, what were the top three alternative destinations that you considered as a meeting site instead

of Jacksonville?

Mentions

Verbatim Response (N)

Orlando 30 Tampa 18 Atlanta 16

Savannah 7

Charlotte 4

Daytona 4

Las Vegas 4

St. Augustine 4

Ft. Lauderdale 4

Chicago 3

Dallas 3

Miami 3

New Orleans 3 San Antonio 3

Anaheim 2

Arizona 2

Austin 2

Birmingham 2

Charleston 2

Denver 2

Memphis 2

Nashville 2

Tucson 2

Atlantic Beach 1 Baltimore, MD 1

Cincinnati 1

Cleveland, OH 1

Costa Mesa, California 1

Cruise Ship 1

Des Moines 1

Fort Myer 1

Greensboro, NC 1

Hilton Head 1

Houston 1

Indianapolis 1

Lexington, KY 1 Los Angeles 1

Louisville 1


STR, Inc. 50

Table 36: CONTINUED

Marksville, LA 1 Minneapolis 1

Naples 1

Norfolk VA 1

Palm Springs 1

Panhandle Gulf Coast Area 1

Philadelphia, PA 1

Phoenix 1

Providence, RI 1

Reston, Virginia 1

San Diego 1

Scottsdale 1

Toronto 1 TX 1

West Palm Beach 1

Grand Total 157


STR, Inc. 51

Table 37. Destinations to Which Jacksonville Lost Business – Jacksonville 2016 Custom Study

In the past two years, what were the top three alternative destinations that you considered as a meeting site instead of

Jacksonville? Which (if any) of these destinations did you [ultimately] select to host a meeting? (Enter all that apply)

Verbatim Response Mentions

(N)

Orlando 19 Tampa 7

Chicago 4

Miami 4

Atlanta 3

Daytona Beach 2 Denver 2

Ft. Lauderdale 2

Las Vegas 2

Louisville KY 2

San Antonio 2

Savannah 2

Atlantic Beach 1

Birmingham 1

Cincinnati 1

Cleveland, OH 1

Dallas 1 Hilton Head 1

Houston, TX 1

Long Beach 1

Marksville 1

Memphis 1

Milwaukee 1

Minneapolis 1

New Orleans - Hyatt 1

Norfolk VA 1

Panhandle Gulf Coast Area 1

Philadelphia, PA 1

Phoenix 1 Providence 1

San Diego CA 1

Scottsdale 1

St. Augustine, FL 1

Toronto 1

Tucson, AZ 1

TX 1

West Palm Beach 1

Grand Total 76

prepared for: visit jacksonville - amazon s3€¦ · prepared for: visit jacksonville prepared by:...

Documents