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.
And that's the multiplier effect. It's impossible to quantify. But suggesting it doesn't exist is just silly.
|
You must think you are literally the only person in the entire world that knows what a multiplier effect is.
For the last time it does not matter if you bring an extra 200,000 tickets in a year for which the city is going to see a couple million in revenue, with a couple million more in businesses around it (sidenote: arenas do not generate businesses around them, but let's assume they do), when you spend a billion dollars to do it.
If you spent the billion dollars to build condos, plazas, music halls (east village), you will see a much much much larger multiplier effect than an arena with a few extra concerts.
If your end game is jobs, spending the billion dollars to attract some tech company to move to Calgary will be cheaper and more effective than the arena.
The arena is basically the worst economic choice in every single way when considering the opportunity cost. However, the social and emotional benefits of having an NHL team may outweigh the horrible economic cost. That's for the city (and us) to decide, but don't try to argue economic benefits when it's basically been proven over and over that there are none.