Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root
As I have said multiple times, these things are very difficult to prove one way or the other, because no one says "well, I didn't go to a concert this month so I am going to go see a play".
All we can do is ask ourselves, how would I react? how do others react?
I know that, for my friends, the concert substitution is Vegas and Phoenix. I have no doubt that there are all kinds of other substitutions, many of which are here in town.
But I can throw the same question back to you: can you demonstrate any increased patronage in Calgary for other entertainment choices, compared to Edmonton?
I don't doubt that there are some. But the referenced numbers are huge. And concerts are big dollars - both direct and indirect. Unless someone can demonstrate other forms of entertainment here in town that are benefitting massively from the lack of concert attendance, it's probably pretty safe to conclude that the bleed is fairly significant.
|
I think your claims that these figures "are hard to prove" is wrong. Yes, studies cannot show what people are spending their money on as a substitute but every study that has been referenced on this forum has shown that the money has gone into the economy in some way or another.
The NHL also has some great data with respect to the loss of NHL events: we have had two NHL lockouts! They have been studied to death in all states and the same conclusions hold true: the money is spent on something else.
A U of A prof studied sales tax receipt changes in Florida during the 05 lockout. He found no/negligible change suggesting that spending stayed the same during the lockout. No decrease in revenue that Florida was receiving.
I understand that you have anecdotal evidence of changes (and I appreciate that you clarify it as anecdotal) but again its anecdotal for a reason. You are witnessing it in your own narrow experience of you and/or your friends.