On February 17, Greg Batton and Dan Diorio talked to Bradley professors Dr. Robert Scott and Dr. Joshua Lewer on the Greg & Dan Show on 1470 WMBD (listen to an .mp3 of the interview here). The two professors volunteered their time to conduct an “independent economic analysis” of the proposed downtown museum project. Let’s take a look at what they had to say.
As the interview began, one of the first topics they hit on was projected attendance at the museum. In response to Dan Diorio saying that museum attendance is down across the country, Dr. Scott countered, “Actually, most everything’s down a bit this year because of the recession . . . but there’s more museum attendance in the United States than there is at all athletic events combined.” He followed up by saying, “So, if you think about all of the activity that’s so prevalent on TV athletic events, there are a lot more people going to these kinds of venues.”
Museum attendance figures are relatively easy to come by; the American Association of Museums (AAM) website states that “American museums average approximately 865 million visits per year,” based on a 1999 study. But the tricky part is defining what is meant by “all athletic events combined.” A November 24, 2008, NPR story regarding museums gave this example, which corroborates Dr. Scott’s statistic:
If you add up the attendance for every major-league baseball, basketball, football and hockey game this year, the combined total will come to about 140 million people. That’s a big number, but it’s barely a fraction of the number of people who will visit American museums this year.
Museums are big business, attracting billions of tourist dollars, advancing science, and educating and amusing more than 850 million people annually.
As impressive as that comparison sounds, it’s not a fair comparison. The total attendance for major-league baseball, basketball, football, and hockey games more specifically comes to 139,474,548, according to figures available on Wikipedia. But there are only 122 teams (32 NFL, 30 MLB, 30 NHL, and 30 NBA). If you divide that out, you’ll see that it comes to an average attendance of 1,143,234 people per team. In comparison, according to both the AAM and NPR, there are 17,500 museums nationwide. If you take the 865 million visitors reported by the AAM and divide it by the number of museums, it comes out to an average attendance of just 48,914 people per museum. And we won’t even get into the fact that museums are open year-round, whereas sporting events have a limited number of games per season.
Next, Dr. Scott said, “And here in Peoria alone at Lakeview, they get over a hundred thousand — something like 110,000 — attendees a year.” This is difficult to verify. In a May 2007 presentation included in material the museum gave to Peoria County, the Museum Collaboration Group said Lakeview’s past four-year average attendance was 87,000. On the other hand, Lakeview Museum’s website now says they get 125,000 visitors per year. So, who knows what the real attendance figure is?
Next up, the John Deere Pavilion: Dr. Scott said, “They [John Deere] get over 200,000 attendees a year.” County Board Member and blogger Merle Widmer called the manager of the John Deere Pavilion and asked for their 2008 annual attendance. She said it was 175,000 to 180,000.
In fairness, Dr. Scott did say later in the interview, “Joshua [Lewer] and I did not go into a detailed analysis of the attendance. We talked to the people who had done the detailed analysis.” So his information is only as good as what was given to him by “the people who had done the detailed analysis,” which would be the museum group.
But here’s the problem: if the economic analysis was substantially based on attendance numbers provided by the museum folks, then the deck was stacked from the beginning. The success of the museum is inextricably tied to its attendance forecast. If they don’t get enough visitors, they can’t operate in the black, and the economic impact would be lower as well. By accepting the museum’s high attendance predictions, they’re conceding that the museum will be successful before they even start the economic impact study. It should come as no surprise that a rosy economic forecast resulted from optimistic attendance figures.
Three things: First, those are just a few professional sports. Add tennis, boxing, soccer and others. IF you added them ALL up, I’m sure the attendance would be closer. Second, look at the average ticket price to get into those sporting events. Not everyone can afford those prices. You can’t watch a museum from home, so of course numbers for sporting events will be less. Last, I would like to know what the projected figures would be for “free will” participants. Anyone who goes to these sporting events goes by “free will” while how many thousands of school kids will be dragged to a museum because it is part of their school day, but become a attendance statistic…and who is paying for it. Obviously museums vs. sports isn’t the best of analogies.
Somehow the comparisons left out NASCAR, the largest spectator sport in the country. Even if you added this in though, and gave a conservative estimate of 100,000 fans per race, times 36 races per season… that’s just 3.6 million more onto that total.
Never underestimate the power of the field trip I suppose.
there are a lot of minor league teams (even Peoria has baseball and hockey). More importantly, I have been to the Deere Pavilion more than once. I don’t recall paying an admission fee. So the attendance numbers are guesses, and would be MUCH lower if there was an admission fee. Oh, and how many of Lakeview’s 100,000 or so paid full price admission? Too bad the Par-a-Dice can’t take bets on what the admission numbers will be.
CJ – Another factor to consider for Lakeview Museum – They have 2 preschool classes per year. The kids regularly visit the museum. They also do a lot of summer and science camps, and then of course, host field trips for school children. My guess is that all those visits by all those kids are included in their attendance figures. It would be interesting to know what type of admission cost, if any, was paid by each of those “visitors”. Of course, to be fair, the educational opportunities for those children are nothing to sneeze at… but this is a post about projections not benefits.
The few times we have been to Lakeview (we were members) there were probably no more than 10 or so people.
Just off the top of my head without looking at any statistics, I would guess that athletic events have more fans than do museums–and more attendees (at least in Peoria). However, I would hope that when visitors come to attend games at the civic center, etc., they might go to the museum, also. And I also would hope that we wouldn’t vote against a museum just because the attendance might not be as high as that for athletic events–just as all too often District 150 puts more money into athletics than into academic extra-curricular activities. I admit I haven’t paid much attention to the details of all the arguments about the museum on this blog. However, last night I had a brief “low-key” discussion with County Board Member Jimmy Dillon (who is pro the museum). I don’t feel strongly enough about the museum to go out and beat the drum. However, I think I’ve decided to cast my lone vote for the museum if for no other reason than that the hole should be filled with something.
I am going to go back and take a second and longer look at the arguments against and for the museum on this blog–especially, the arguments pro and con the proposed “contents” of the museum. I gather from my discussion with Jimmy that most exhibits will be more interactive and virtual. Certainly, I would prefer looking at art, artifacts, etc., but the younger generation is probably more into interactive and virtual. I was a bit swayed by Dillon’s argument about where Peoria would be if we had listened to all the negatives about building the civic center. It might not bring in all the revenue we would like, but what would Peoria be like without it.
I guess it is my desire always to add my two cents worth–but I am not that firm on my decision yet–just leaning toward a “yes” vote. And what I’ve said is undoubtedly a repeat of arguments already made.
In West Peoria alone, the museum vote is probably the only issue that will bring voters out since we have no contested races in April. I am not sure that the museum issue will bring that many voters out.
Mouse:
Exactly. John Deere Pavilion. Fee-Free of Charge.
http://www.deere.com/en_US/attractions/pavilion/index.html
Does anyone even read Widmers blog? There is hardly ever any comments. He just kind of rants about the same thing over and over.
Personally, I’ve concluded that Mr. Widmer is much more interested in creating inflamatory rhetoric rather than conducting a rational discussion and analysis of facts and figures, so no, I never even look at his blog anymore.
As a constituent of his, I was embarrassed and fustrated at his County Board vote to disallow the citizens of Peoria County the opportunity to vote on a tax referendum. From my perspective, that’s one of the founding principles of liberty which defines this county, that the people get the opportunity to vote, and that right is not to be trampled on by arrogant and pompous elected officials who feel their opinions are sufficient to bypass the rights of the citizens.
Thanks goodness he’s committed to not running again for another term.
Does anyone read me? Mostly sincere and intelligent people at the rate of 140 to 120 a day. High 257 in one day.
To Sharon Crews. If you want to learn some real facts about museums, you might want to glance my “blog way” also.
As to my no vote on the referendum, you might want to read my blogs also. The involvement of the County, the fabricated truths being put out by the museum people, $600,000 plus to advertise a sure thing.
C.J., like all of us who seek the truth, there are always shallow people whose mouths are bigger than their intelligence.
The museum promoters are giving out misleading facts constantly. Don’t begrudge those who are giving out the real facts without spending $600,000.
I do agree that the advertising to get out the vote is costing too much. I noticed the other day that everywhere I looked there was a Build the Block advertisement.
If you read Merles’ comments and blog, you will find real facts substantiating his postiion, contra to the Bradley professors. but, money will win the referundum.
wacko: “money will win the referendum” — why is that?
“Does anyone even read Widmers blog? There is hardly ever any comments. He just kind of rants about the same thing over and over.”
– If that is the case, than Peoriafan and Merle have more in common than anyone thought!
Merle is doing just fine.
Its not a case of our being against the museum. What we are questioning is the way the referendum facts are being represented. Their facts are in question. The true depth of the amount of money we are going to be held accountable for is in question. We already have a museum that could be brought up to “world class” status without moving it. This block of prime real estate should be used for something far more significant to the city of Peoria. A combination of retail and residental, such as condominiums, stores, restaurants. The vote is for a tax increase for a public facility. Nothing is said about a museum. And if the museum should happen to bring in more than anticipated there is nothing in there about retiring the debt before the end of the 20 years it calls for. Also, the facility can change hands and if the museum fails the property could be leased to a private entity and they will make money while we still pay the tax on the bonds issued for a museum for 20 years. We are not against a museum, we are against the way this one is being represented and mapped out financially. The truth is not being told completely, in the referendum. Its appropriate for the people to vote, but only when all the truth is exposed for them to vote on.
Peoriafan – why don’t you start a blog?
still voting yes
peoriafanon:
still voting yes
Why “still”? It sounds like despite all the evidence that it is and will be a disaster, you are still going to vote for it, ANYWAY.
“Never let the facts get in the way of a good opinion”
Karrie: do you see any “money” purchasing ads opposing the referendum? No, because money has organized a group to push it thru; any chance of seeing the names of this group-nope! Organization vs. no organization-whichone will win? Put a real referendum and question on the ballot and schedule the vote at the general election when people will be coming out to vote, and you will get a better answer.
Peoriafan,
Really though…., do your parents know you blog?
Loved the editorial written by Paul Lermack
Professor of Political Science at Bradley University.
Did I read that right? Bradley? Home of Econ Man and his trusted sidekick?
Is anyone following the Peoria Symphony ‘scandal’? It would seem that more than a few people are upset with the PSO/Lakeview board for ‘letting’ Commanday go. Even Gilmore pulled his big bucks out! I respect Gilmore for his decision, though he has the money and clout not to have to worry about ‘backlash’.
Does it bother anyone else that a few ‘select’ in this town are running every cultural institution Peoria has into the ground? Of course that includes the museum. The TV adds were not even warm and fuzzy.
Sharon,
Love you, but building a multi-million dollar, tax funded museum just to “fill a hole” just ain’t right. Think on this as well….a museum is NOT a Civic Center. I do like the Civic Center, but if we apply Dillon’s logic [if there is any], is the Civic Center REALLY making Peoria any money…I mean really?
Lastly,
Dillon and the rest of the county board [with the exception of Merle] wouldn’t know the first thing about museums. Please, someone ask them to stop acting like they do. Dillon is butt-kissing along with the rest of the board – while being spoon-fed a bunch of sunshine.
Frustrated, I probably agree with you; I’m just not certain yet. I would like Peoria to have a museum–even if it isn’t a money maker–but then you all know that I don’t always look at the bottom line; I’m glad that there are people who do. Fortunately, I do not place myself on any boards, etc., where I would have to make those financial (intelligent) decisions.
Second question: Would we really want Peoria without a civic center?
Sharon — In what way(s) is the Civic Center analogous to the proposed museum? I can only think of two ways: a sales tax is being proposed to finance it, and there are many people opposed to a sales tax increase for this purpose. Nothing else appears to be the same to me.
C.J., I am probably going to give in to your arguments–because I do understand them. I’m not excited about paying more every time I go out to eat, etc. One night this week a friend and I had this argument–I took your side (I’m versatile). Her argument was that Peoria just keeps saying “no” to improvements, etc. However, she and I were definitely on opposite sides concerning the proposed housing development in Peoria–her idea of bringing in “doubtful” revenue didn’t appeal to me as I didn’t view the project as an improvement.
However–back to the hole. I’m not at all convinced that shops and restaurants are the answer. Of course, I remember when the whole area was full of shops (Bergner’s, etc.) and restaurants–all of which left way to make way for Sheridan Village and then Northwoods Mall and now Grand Prairie. I would be delighted to see downtown thrive again. I just don’t know that the population with the money will be enticed back downtown. Are all the present restaurants, etc., thriving now? I really don’t know.
Everything comes back to the same discussion–Peoria, along with District 150, is dying and we’re all trying to find ways to revive them both. We just don’t always agree on “how.”
I mentioned the Civic Center only because Frustrated indicated that it isn’t that much of a moneymaker either. I’m not sure a museum anywhere in Peoria will ever be a moneymaker–but I’m not certain that’s a reason not to have one–but remember I’m thinking “ideal,” not looking at the bottom line. I’ll try to consider the bottom line when I vote.
As a former resident of the Quad Cities area. When the Deere Pavillion was built we also got the Mark of the Quad Cities. They marketed these 2 buildings together and Deere put up most if not all of the money for the Deere Pavillion. Also where the pavillion is its in a high traffic area in a downtown that is a lot nicer looking then ours. And you know why Deere didn’t have to work as hard for the City of Moline to let them build it? Because it was built on property that John Deere already owned. Not like Catapiller that wants to use city owned property and our tax dollars to make the museum happen.
And to touch a bit on what sharon was stating about our downtowns dying. Do you why most downtowns are dying? Because the oil industry cant make money off of us being able to walk from store to store in a downtown setting. They put it into someones head that if we become totally dependent on our cars and spread out where we shop its a win win situation for the automakers and oil industry. Plus WE killed our downtowns by killing the little men. The ones that ran the mom and pop shops that everyone used to go to.
Actually, the move from downtown was caused when people decided they wanted to live farther and farther away from problems real and perceived. Also, they wanted to build new homes. Personally, I don’t think the original move away had anything to do with the oil industry. The businesses simply followed the money. I remember buying a car at University Ford because it was the last car dealership located in my vicinity. I barely drove away in my new car when I read in the paper that University Ford would be moving to Pioneer Parkway and replaced with a Wal-Mart. The same thing with grocery stores; they kept moving closer and closer to the people with the most money to spend. Even churches followed the same path.
Alice in Peorialand, if what you say is true, then the oil industry should convince people to come back downtown because many shoppers don’t live any where close to downtown.
I was almost literally the last person to leave downtown shopping. Bergner’s was getting ready to close to move to Sheridan village. There were two shoe stores–Crawfords and the Shoe Salon (I think). They were about the last businesses to close. I went downtown for one last visit–I walked two or three blocks from Bergner’s to the shoe stores. I remember the feeling that I had when I realized that Peoria’s downtown had been totally abandoned–I felt abandoned as I was the only person on the street that night. In fact, if I’m not mistaken both shoe stores closed to make room for the Civic Center.
There may have been a few businesses on Main Street that lasted a bit longer. There was a office supply store–Jacquin’s that tried to last in the “ghost town.”
Then I remember when the buffet restaurant by Sears closed (what was its name?). Was it Bishops? and then Sears itself closed. Then there was no reason for me to shop downtown.
I don’t think boutique type shops and more restaurants will draw people back downtown.
Sharon – you referenced me in a couple of your posts under this topic, however, I don’t remember weighing in the subject??
I think what exists in Peoria must be just what the majority of the community wants, right? If there was pent up demand for boutique shopping and trendy restaurants downtown than there would be some if you believe in the market system.
I also, think, that Peoria and the District ignore the signs of what people in the area do want. I know many of you mention the need for more housing in the downtown area, but ask Diane what is selling in the real estate market (this answer might be a bit skewed now given the current economic downturn). Though many of you that blog on the web site are fans of the older neighborhoods (as I am), clearly there are many that are not. A lot of families want newer construction and a minimum of a 2 car garage. It isn’t just the performance of the District that is inhibiting the vibrancy of Peoria it is the housing stock. Yet, I do not see the City working with any developers to rehab/demolish the older housing in a decaying area and build new.
Similarly, I do not see the District upgrading its college prep program at Richwoods or marketing its IB program, nor devoting more resources to schools like Charter Oak or Kellar to make them more competitive to those of surrounding Districts. What gives?
You can’t tell people what they want!!! Instead you have to develop a community focused around their needs and desires.
I think the City and the District say they want one result but act counter to achieving that aim. So, it is no surprise that things continue to erode.
Frustrated: I’m not sure why I referenced you either–the last discussion “we” had was this response of yours.
Sharon,
Love you, but building a multi-million dollar, tax funded museum just to “fill a hole” just ain’t right. Think on this as well….a museum is NOT a Civic Center. I do like the Civic Center, but if we apply Dillon’s logic [if there is any], is the Civic Center REALLY making Peoria any money…I mean really?
I’m trying to figure out if I said something that would make you think that I’m part of the the fans of older neighborhoods group. I’m not at all sure that we can turn the clock back that far. If there are people willing to try to rebuild the older neighborhoods, then I say good for them. I live in an older neighborhood–and maybe I wouldn’t if I could afford another neighborhood. In fact, right now, I would be happy if West Peoria can just hold on to its stable middle class residents. We’re still in a place where we have a chance–and District 150 isn’t helping.
I think we agree about the boutiques and restaurants, don’t we? I really don’t see downtown becoming anything more than a place for visitors and residents to go for special occasions, events, and dinner out.–I guess that’s why I’m tempted to go with the museum;
I’m not sure if we have a misunderstanding here or not–clarify please.
I don’t know that I have ever commented on this blog about the museum other than to state that I might have been on the fence with my support but now it just seems in bad taste with the economic downturn, etc. I do not believe for one minute that the Peoria area has seen the last of layoffs from CAT, I believe there will continue to be more through mid-year. I just think continuing to push the issue of the museum at this time is not in not what the area needs.
I was stating, however, that the City/District should focus on housing and school issues in order to reclaim and/or attract a popluation that can infuse some life back into the City and its schools.
I think market forces will thereafter take care of the rest, but first things first.
Sharon,
This is NEW VOICE! I was commenting on your post.
That’s OK though……………everyone else ignores me.
I think your comments were well written.
What the museum SHOULD be, and what PRM wants it to be are two different things entirely.
Does anyone know if the PRM had to PAY someone…anyone to hang little Build the Block banners from all the lamp posts downtown? If they did PAY, can any small business pay to hang banners all over the place?
FRUSTRATED: My apologies–I was responding to New Voice, not to you. No, you hadn’t weighed in on the subject. I’m not sure how that happened–maybe one of my midnight responses.
Most people forgot that I bought out Jacquins and tried for a couple of years to make a go of it downtown.
Brought in new inventory, increased advertising but finally had to close it and fold it into my Widmer Office Products. Jacquin’s sales manager Tom Walsh, became my Sales Manager and eventually president.
When i sold my company in 1992, Tom was retained as president until years later, when he took a position as president of an office equipment company in Springfield, Mo.
No, Merle, I didn’t exactly forget because once you jogged my memory I do recall that you owned it.
No, Merle, I didn’t exactly forget because once you jogged my memory I do recall that you owned it and wasn’t Widmer’s located in the area of Hobby Lobby or the sporting goods store?