Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root
It's all about substitution.
Calgarians went to 41% as many concert-seats as Edmontonians did. So what are the implications?
1) Calgarians aren't as interested in concerts and just don't spend as much money on entertainment (that seems very unlikely)
2) Calgarians are substituting other things instead of concerts (the libarary, the zoo?)
3) Calgarians are going elsewhere for concerts, such as Edmonton, Vancouver, Phoenix and Las Vegas.
#3 is both the most likely explanation, and - by a mile - the worst, because if they are going to other cities to see concerts, they aren't just spending their concert money elsewhere, they are also attending bars and restaurants, spending travel dollars, shopping, etc.
|
You are making two assumptions:
- People are choosing the most expensive and time-consuming alternative.
- People have a set budget for entertainment.
If people choose to attend concerts elsewhere, it would be difficult to imagine them going every week. It would be just as difficult to imagine travelling concert goers doing absolutely nothing locally in terms of entertainment between trips. Would they go out less than before? Most likely. Do nothing at all? Doubtful.
When you start to consider how many people can actually afford to attend concerts elsewhere and the fact that not all concerts bypass Calgary, does the cost benefit still look as good? At that point, does funding micro-initiatives to increase the supply of local entertainment options begin to compete?
If after considering all of this it is determined that Calgary needs a new facility and it cannot be built by the private sector, the City should step in a fill a role that the private sector cannot play. A local company like CSEC could then manage the facility for a percentage of the revenue generated by the public investment.