LTC 025-2004 Review of the Greater Miami Convention and Visitors Bureau CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
Office of the City Manager
Letterto Commission No. 025-200
To:
From:
Subject:
Date: January 28, 2004
Mayor David Dermer and
Members of the City Commission
Jorge M. Gonzalez ~ ~/'- ~
City Manager
THE REVIEW, ASSESSMENT, AND RECOMMENDED STRUCTURE OF THE
GREATER MIAMI CONVENTION AND VISITORS BUREAU CONDUCTED BY
ECONOMIC RESEARCH ASSOCIATES (ERA)
On May 22, 2002, the Mayor and City Commission adopted Resolution No. 2002-24854,
authorizing the renewal of the Agreement between the City of Miami Beach and the
Greater Miami Convention and Visitors Bureau (the "Bureau") conditioned upon the
issuance of a Request for Proposals (RFP) to review and assess the current Bureau
governance, structure, processes and overall operations, and make recommendations as
to what model and/or structure should provide the services to achieve optimal sales,
marketing, and public relations efforts to enhance the City's Tourism and Convention
Industries.
On July 31, 2002, the Mayor and City Commission discussed whether the City of Miami
Beach should participate with Miami-Dade County and the City of Miami in a collaborative
study and evaluation of the Bureau, and elected to conduct its own study.
On November 13, 2002 the Mayor and City Commission adopted Resolution No. 2002-
25072 and authorized a contract with ERA to:
Review and assess the Bureau governance, structure, processes and overall
operations;
Make recommendations as to what type of model/structure should exist to enhance
the City of Miami Beach's tourism and convention industries;
Compare and provide a comprehensive report on Bureau operations relative to
industry standards; and
On January 14, 2004, the Mayor and City Commission referred the review, assessment,
and recommended structure of the Greater Miami Convention and Visitors Bureau
conducted by Economic Research Associates to the Finance and Citywide Projects
Committee.
As part of the City's commitment to assure participation by City stakeholders, in February
2003 (as advised via LTC 31-2003), I organized a steering committee to help guide the
consultant's work plan and provide input throughout the deliverables. The steering
committee has been comprised of City staff and:
Elsie Howard, Visitors and Convention Authority
Stu Blumberg, Greater Miami and the Beaches Hotel Association
Michael Milberg, Chair of Miami Beach Convention Center
David Kelsey, South Beach Hotel and Restaurant Association
GMCVB Liaison - to be appointed by GMCVB
Doug Tober, SMG
On January 13, 2004, the Steering Committee convened to review the 2nd Revised Draft
Report (see attached) and provided commentary. As a result, the consultant has
incorporated certain revisions to the report in the form of a 3rd Revised Draft Report, that in
our opinion, is beyond the original scope of work.
The Steering Committee will meet one final time, the week of February 2nd, to review the
3rd Revised Draft Report. The Committee's comments will be forwarded to be discussed at
the next Finance Committee meeting.
Let us preface the distribution of the 2nd Revised Draft Report with the proviso that
ERA has conducted and prepared this report independently. The Administration,
together with the Steering Committee, has attempted to provide input to the
Consultant as they developed their recommendations. However, the Consultant's
report reflects their opinions and does not necessarily include all of the input
provided to date. Additionally, the Consultant has included recommendations in an
attempt to address individual committee member concerns that has resulted in a
deviation from the original scope of work.
As stated above, this report has been referred to the Finance Committee at which time,
direction on the upcoming expiration of the Agreement between the City of Miami Beach
and the Greater Miami Convention and Visitors Bureau contract and any future action
should be discussed. In the meantime, if you have any questions, please do not hesitate
to contact me.
JMG/CMC/rar
F;\cmgr~ALL\LTC-04\ERA LTC-04.rnem.doc
Economics Research Associates
Deliverable 4: Second Revised Draft Report
Review, Assessment and Recommended
Structure of the Greater Miami
Convention and Visitors Bureau
Prepared for the
City of Miami Beach
Submitted by:
Economics Research Associates
In association with
Tourism Development Associates
Version Delivered: January 8, 200~
ERA Project No. 14932
388 Market Street, Suite 1580
San Francisco, CA 94111
(415) 956-8152 FAX (415) 956-5274 www.econres.com
Los Angeles San Francisco San Diego Chicago
Washington DC Dallas New York London
Section
I.
II.
III.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .....................................................................
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................
Page
I-1
II-1
COMPARISON OF GMCVB WITH OTHER BUREAUS .................... IV-1
Introduction .............................................................................................. IV- 1
The Role of a Convention and Visitors Bureau ....................................... IV-2
Key Comparable CVBs by Size of Budget and Room Count ................. IV-4
Profiling the Greater Miami Convention and Visitors Bureau ................ IV-9
Greater Miami Compared with Seven Major Destinations ...................... IV-17
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES ......................................................................... V-1
Introduction .............................................................................................. V- 1
Issue: What Would be the Optimal Model ............................................. V-2
Issue: Identity and Brand ........................................................................ V-5
Issue: Communication Between the Bureau and the City ...................... V-7
Issue: Strategic Plan ................................................................................ V-9
General Issue: Governance, Structure, Processes & Operations ............ V-10
Issue: Bureau Governance ...................................................................... V-10
Issue: Overall Funding for Tourism Industry Needs .............................. V-12
Issue: Bureau Funding ........................................................................... V-13
Issue: GMCVB Operations and Evaluation ............................................V- 15
Specific Issue: Appropriate Performance Measures for the Bureau ....... V-16
Issue: Marketing ...................................................................................... V-20
Issue: Appropriate Tourism Responsibility of City Apart from Bureau. V-22
Summary of Major Findings and Recommendations .............................. V-24
APPENDIX A: WHY MIAMI BEACH SHOULD PROMOTE TOURISM A-1
APPENDIX B: INDUSTRY STANDARD PERFORMANCE MEASURES B-1
APPENDIX C: LOG OF INTERVIEWS ............................................... C-1
APPENDIX D: BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................... D-1
MIAMI BEACH FUNDING OF GMCVB
AND RESORT/ROOM TAX ALLOCATIONS ..................................... III-1
City of Miami Beach Funding of GMCVB ............................................. III-1
Miami Beach Resort Tax ......................................................................... 111-3
Convention Development Tax ................................................................. 111-7
LIST OF TABLES
Section
HI- 1
III- 2
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH RESORT AND TAX
REVENUES BY MONTH, 1999-2002 ...................................................
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH TOURISM AND PROMOTION PAYMENTS
Page
III- 3
III- $
III- ~3
IV-1
IV- 2
IV- 3
IV- 4
IV- 5
IV- 6
IV-7
IV-8
IV-9
IV-10
IV-11
IV-12
COUNTYWIDE CONVENTION AND
TOURIST TAX COLLECTIONS ........................................................... III- g_8
COMPARABLE BUDGETS OF LARGE CVBs .................................... IV- 5
COMPETITORS IN THE CVB BUDGET SIZE $4-$7 MILLION ........ IV- 5
COMPARING CVBs NATIONALLY BY
SIMILAR ROOM COUNT .....................................................................
IV- 6
COMPARISON BY THE SPENDING PER ROOM FOR
U.S. CVBs WITH APPROXIMATELY 10,000 TO 100,000
HOTEL ROOMS TO FILL .....................................................................
IV- 7
COMPARING THE RANGE OF SPENDING PER
HOTEL ROOM IN BUREAUS IN FLORIDA .......................................
IV- 8
ORGANIZATION PROFILE CVBs WITH BUDGETS
$10,000,000 AND HIGHER ....................................................................
IV- 9
ACCOUNTING TREATMENT AND POLICIES
CVBs WITH BUDGETS HIGHER THAN $10,000,000 ........................
IV-11
FUNDING FOR CVBsWlTH BUDGETS OF
$10,000,000ANDHIGHER ....................................................................
IV-13
LINE ITEM EXPENSES CVBs WITH BUDGETS OF
$10,000,000 AND HIGHER ....................................................................
IV-16
ORGANIZATION AND STRUCTURE ................................................. IV- 17
COMPARISON OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE FUNDING ................... IV-18
COMPARISON OF EXPENSES ............................................................ IV-19
V-1 IACVB TOTAL RETURN ON FUNDING CALCULATION ............... V-19
iii
LIST OF FIGURES
Section
HI- 1
HI- 2
HI- 3
SEASONALITY OF RESORT AND ROOM TAX REVENUES ..........
ALLOCATION OF MIAMI BEACH 2% RESORT TAX ......................
MIAMI BEACH ONE PERCENT ROOM TAX ALLOCATION .........
Page
III- 4
HI- 5
III- 6
iv
SECTION I: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Miami Beach retained the consultant team of Economics Research Associates
(ERA) and Tourism Development Associates (TDA) to assess the structure of the Greater
Miami Convention and Visitors Bureau (Bureau or GMCVB) and its relationship to the
City. This structural assessment study is related to three other consulting efforts currently
underway or already completed: a market analysis, an audit of the Bureau from the
perspective of Miami-Dade County, and a strategic plan.
A number of structural questions were posed in the City's request for consultant
proposals, but perhaps the most fundamental of these was:
Should the City continue to fund and participate in the Bureau's
efforts to market the Greater Miami area for tourism and convention
business, or should the City set up a structure to market Miami Beach
only?
The consultant team found the answer to this question unequivocally to be it is in the
City's best interest to continue to participate in a regional marketing structure of
the type provided by the GMCVB, and that the City utilize a share of the revenue
generated by the visitor industry to implement tourism development programs and
direct marketing initiatives to increase the City's own market share once visitors
arrive to the region. This is because the "tourism infrastructure" serving leisure and
convention visitors alike includes the airport, ground transportation, hotels, restaurants
and shops, public and private meeting facilities, beaches and other unique features of the
natural and built environment. These assets are spread throughout the region. In the
absence of any existing marketing structure, a regional public-private partnership of the
type provided by the GMCVB is the optimal structure for marketing all of the Greater
Miami area to attract visitors from the world at large. At the same time, the City provides
municipal services to visitors, maintains and enhances the tourism infrastructure, and
should utilize funding to attract visitors to Miami Beach businesses and facilities once
they have decided to come to the Greater Miami area. Taxes collected from visitors
provide over $20 million per year within Miami Beach alone to fund this mix of regional
and local activities. A primary mechanism for coordinating the regional, "bureau-type,"
efforts and local City efforts is a shared vision articulated in a written Strategic Plan.
Having resolved this fundamental issue, however, there remain many other questions
posed by the City designed to identify the optimal structure starting from a "blank slate"
as if no structure currently existed throughout the region, and also starting from where
things are today. A summary of the findings and recommendations from this analysis is
as follows:
Quality of the Relationship Between Bureau and City. The ERA/TDA consultant
team has found the quality of the relationship between the GMCVB and the City is
currently poor, and obviously has been deteriorating in recent years. The degree of
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB Summary of Findings and Recommendations
ERA Project No. 14932 Page I-1
dysfunction in the City-Bureau working relationship threatens to diminish the ability of
the Bureau and City to continue growing the economic benefits derived from a healthy
tourism-based economy.
Strategic Plan. One fimdamental cause of dysfunction in the relationship has been the
lack of a Strategic Plan articulating shared goals and objectives. Although the Strategic
Plan is now underway, the City has been calling for such a plan for over four years in
order to clarify directions and priorities for all parties that would allow the City to better
envision common goals and be a better parmer in working with the Bureau. This
Strategic Plan should encompass more than a marketing work plan. It should begin with
a process to achieve input and buy-in from all the regional partners and clearly define the
agreed upon goals and objectives of the GMCVB. It should: set goals and objectives
based on a strategic analysis of the research (including research on competitors); identify
target markets for attracting visitors; position the various Greater Miami (and Miami
Beach) tourism products within the competitive field; suggest what new tourism and
convention products should be developed; prioritize improvements in the tourism
infrastructure; etc.
Communication Between Bureau and City. Communication problems can be a
contributing factor to a declining relationship, and improved communication can be part
of the solution. While it is possible for gifted individuals to overcome even a poor
structure in order to rescue a relationship, the focus of this analysis is on how to design an
optimal structure that maximizes the probability of a productive working relationship,
regardless of the personalities involved. The consultant recommendation is that each
party develop a high level staff position that has primary responsibility for representation
to the other party. The City has recently hired a tourism professional that could function
in this role. The recommendation for the Bureau is to create a new executive position,
perhaps with the title Senior Vice President of Public Affairs, to have primary
responsibility for communicating with constituents in the greater Miami area, including
the City of Miami Beach. Examples of how such a position within a bureau's
organizational structure has been used very effectively are San Francisco and Los
Angeles.
Governance. In the context of the last couple of contract renewals the City has
negotiated increased representation on the Bureau's Board and on the Executive
Committee. Miami Beach provides approximately one-third (ranging from 30 to 35
pement) of funding from the public interlocal partners, and representation on the Board
and key committees is proportional to this one-third financial support. Even so, the City
feels their influence over Bureau direction is still insufficient. On the one hand, the
Bureau cannot cede majority control of the Bureau to a minority partner, for example
fimctioning like a department of the City of Miami Beach, without alienating the other
interlocal partners and the private contributors (both financial and in-kind) that are so
essential to an effective national and intemational sales effort. On the other hand, Miami
Beach also invests financially in the tourism industry by being the host to the majority of
visitors (and bearing the General Fund cost impacts of visitation). The consultants
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB Summary of Findings and Recommendations
ERA Project No. 14932 Page I-2
recommend an implementation process to an optimal state would be to: (1) agree to
specific goals and objectives through a shared strategic planning process; (2) establish a
level of Bureau funding, reserving other portions of the $20+ million in visitor generated
funds for General Fund costs and local Miami Beach programs; (3) set a long term
automatic formula to provide that funding to the Bureau; (4) with influence in proportion
to financial support participate enthusiastically in the Bureau governance process, but on
a daily operating basis let the Bureau pursue its mission of marketing all of Greater
Miami to the larger world; and (5) establish a tourism industry development function
within the City to handle those initiatives that are of most interest at the local Miami
Beach level.
Brand Identity. There has been much local debate over the whether or not the Bureau
gives sufficient weight to the "Miami Beach" destination in its marketing of the region.
Clearly Miami Beach is a major destination within the region; over 75 percent of all
overnight guests go to Miami Beach during their stay, and over 40 percent stay in Miami
Beach lodging. While local residents may be intensely aware of the political boundaries
between communities, the typical visitor is not aware, and frankly does not care.
Although the image is typically Miami Beach, often more specifically South Beach, at
the international and national scale the brand identity for the region is "Miami."
Performance Measures. The City has requested performance measures to evaluate the
GMCVB, or any other alternative structure, in future years. Recognizing that no
standards have existed in the industry for evaluating the performance of bureaus, the
International Association of Convention and Visitors Bureaus (IACVB) has led a multi-
year program to establish industry standards. The IACVB Board has just approved a set
of standards in October of 2003. As described in the body of the report, these can be
used to evaluate the performance of the GMCVB over time in their own market, and
against their own goals. Eventually, industry standardization may allow for some
comparison between bureaus, although there are many additional factors that complicate
cross-bureau comparisons.
Optimal Model for Marketing Leisure/Tourism. Absent any existing structure, the
optimal model for the greater Miami area would be to have the individual communities of
interest (e.g., separate municipalities, hotels and other commercial interests) band
together to provide a regional marketing organization to attract leisure travelers into the
area. Once tourists have been brought to the area, individual cities and commercial
interests would then market to increase their own capture of tourists. In concept, the
GMCVB in the greater Miami area is consistent with the optimal model.
Optimal Model for Marketing Conventions. In today's highly competitive market, a
national scale convention business requires a cohesive package that includes: large and
high-quality meeting and exhibition facilities; one or more headquarters hotels; additional
hotels with a willingness to "block" rooms; a major airport; smooth ground transportation
between airport, hotels and the convention center; interesting offsite event venues; and
casual dining and entertainment opportunities. The greater Miami convention package is
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB Summary of Findings and Recommendations
ERA Project No. 14932 Page I-3
spread among multiple political jurisdictions. Absent any existing structure, the optimal
model for the greater Miami area would be to have the individual communities band
together to provide a regional marketing organization to attract convention travelers into
the area. Once a major convention has selected the area, individual hotels and their host
communities would promote their features to increase their own capture of
conventioneers. In concept, the GMCVB in the greater Miami area is consistent with the
optimal model.
Advertising as a Model for Marketing Tourism. Advertising is one of the functions
employed by a full service Bureau when marketing for both leisure and convention
visitors, and is generally provided by recruitment and retention of a separate advertising
firm. It has been suggested that the City solicit and directly retain an advertising f'mn to
promote Miami Beach. Advertising is only one of many required marketing functions,
however, and a contract with an advertising firm would have to be augmented by
substantial investment by the City in other outside vendors or in-house capabilities to
provide such services as: provide business leads to lodging properties; coordinate the
local business community to prepare bids/proposals for multi-property meetings and
events; conduct meeting planner site inspections for prospective groups; staff a visitor
information center; conduct familiarization tours; create special interest niche
promotions; synergistically coordinate marketing efforts with those of other industry
elements within the region; conduct long range strategic planning; promote the tourism
industry to the host community through education and special outreach programs; and a
wide variety of other critical functions. The consultants do not recommend using an RFP
process to hire an advertising firm, because such a finn would not be able to perform the
full range of services needed. The optimal model is to form a public-private partnership
of regional scope to perform these functions, including the use of an advertising firm. In
concept, the GMCVB in the greater Miami area is consistent with the optimal model.
Comparison of the GMCVB with Other Major Bureaus. Having determined the
GMCVB structure represents an optimal model for marketing the Greater Miami area
conceptually; the next area of investigation is whether it performs optimally in practice.
The ERA/TDA consultant team conducted a benchmarking analysis comparing the
GMCVB with national averages for bureaus of its size, and against seven specific peer
bureaus. The findings are that the GMCVB is within the norm for major bureaus in terms
of: its organizational structure, its accounting practices, its use of satellite offices, size of
membership, and most other routine practices and organization characteristics. The
GMCVB runs with a smaller than average staff, in percentage terms spending less than
the average on payroll, and more than the average on direct promotion. With 72
members, the GMCVB board of directors is more than double the average size for major
bureaus, and with 22 members the Executive Committee is also more than double the
average size of 9. In a diverse regional setting representing multiple destinations and
governmental partners, an argument can be made for maintaining a large board. On the
other hand, decision-making in a large board must be delegated to smaller committees
and subcommittees making it more difficult for any one member to feel heard.
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB Smmnmy of Findings and Recommendations
ERA Project No. 14932 Page I-4
Appropriate Use of the CDT. In addition to the resort tax, overnight visitors to Miami
Beach also pay a Convention Development Tax (CDT) of three percent of hotel room
costs. This tax has been generating $25 to $30 million per year countywide, of which
overnight guests in Miami Beach have been contributing one-third to one-half of the
total. To maximize region-wide economic benefits of the investment, CDT revenues
should be used to fund ongoing upgrades and improvements to convention facilities that
attract additional convention business, and should not be spent on sports, performing arts,
musemns, or other facilities that serve primarily residents. It would be in the best interest
of the City of Miami Beach if a portion of these funds were used to make improvements
to the Miami Beach Convention Center. Needs have already been identified for a new
50,000 square foot multi-purpose general assembly/banquet hall '~'~: ..... ,~ ~.~u ....
ad~itlc, na! ~_~a.. ......;~, ......... ~ ~n~l.: ..... .4 e,~^. c~:~:,:~: to enhance the existing
center.
Overall Adequacy of Tourism Generated Tax Revenues. The resort and hotel taxes
have been generating betwveen $20 and $25 million for the City_ of Miami Beach in recent
years. Additional revenues are generated through the ad valorem tax, parking fees and
fines, and other miscellaneous sources. If fiscal analysis thuds that the costs of serving
tourism and convention business are greater than the revenues generated by visitors, then
increases in taxes paid by visitors may be appropriate. If the fiscal benefits of the visitor
industry are tbund to outweigh the costs, then priorities should be set among providing
General Fund services to visitors, and developing and promoting the industry at the
regional (Bureau) and City levels.
Funding Mechanism. A consistent and assured funding mechanism would improve
performance of the existing working structure between the City and the Bureau, and
reduce a source of historical contention. Historically, the City's financial participation in
the Bureau has been negotiated every two years. This protracted program identification
and negotiation process is not the most effective use of staff time or that of the business
people in the industry who have participated in the process. The optimal structure would
involve a formula-based contribution coupled with a long-term agreement, providing
greater consistency of funding, yet still fluctuating with macro-economic industry
performance. The City would fund additional direct marketing initiatives, and address
local needs from visitor-generated revenues.
Role of the City in the Tourism Industry. Rather than expect the Bureau to undertake
specific initiatives that apply primarily to Miami Beach, the City should conduct its own
blue ribbon community planning process to identify and prioritize programs that should
remain under the full control of the City. These could logically include:
· Product development (e.g., new cultural and heritage attractions);
· Community education, hospitality training, and visitor welcome services;
· Local planning and promotion; and
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB Summary of Findings and Recommendations
ERA Project No. 14932 Page I-5
· Ongoing maintenance of the tourism infrastructure through the full range
of General Fund expenditures.
These City activities should be directed by the same senior staffperson that represents the
City to the Bureau in order to maintain the tightest coordination in convention and
tourism development efforts and to maximize the synergy of both entities working in
concert.
In summary, the City should continue to participate in the funding of the GMCVB and
participate fully in its effort to market the region to the world at large. At the same time
the City should establish a tourism development division within the City. Funding for
both of these tourism development functions and funding for the general fund costs of
serving visitors should come from the taxes levied on visitors. A shared vision,
developed through a strategic planning process, is needed to coordinate the efforts of the
Bureau and the City, and help the City allocate their resources among these three
expenses. Structural changes within the Bureau are recommended to enhance future
communication between the two entities, and parallel structural changes within the City
are already being implemented. Recurring negotiations over funding should be replaced
with a longer term and automatic funding formula.
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB Summary of Findings and Recommendations
ERA Project No. 14932 Page I-6
SECTION II: INTRODUCTION
Since the mid 1980s, the City of Miami Beach (City or CMB) has contracted with the
Greater Miami Convention and Visitors Bureau (Bureau or GMCVB) to provide tourism
and convention promotion and marketing services. The City's recent renewal of the
GMCVB contract was conditioned on the procurement of an independent review and
assessment of the current governance, structure, processes and overall operation of the
GMCVB. The City solicited an independent consultant to make recommendations as to
the ideal structure of the organization to provide the services to achieve optimal public
relations, sales, and marketing to enhance Miami Beach's tourism and convention
industries.
The GMCVB is a private non-profit marketing organization. Its mission is to attract and
encourage individuals and organizations to visit the Greater Miami Area and the Beach
Communities for conventions, business, and recreation. GMCVB has more than one
thousand private business members and four local government members known as
interlocal parmers. The four interlocal partners are Miami-Dade County, City of Miami
Beach, City of Miami and Bal Harbour Village.
Consultant Assignment
The City of Miami Beach selected a consulting team composed of Economics Research
Associates (ERA) as prime contractor, collaborating with Tourism Development
Associates (TDA) as subcontractor. The charge to the consultants was to:
· Review and assess the current GMCVB governance, structure, processes and
overall operations, and benchmark the current operations against other
comparable organizations.
· Recommend what type of model/structure should exist to provide services that
would enhance the CMB's tourism and convention industries.
Report on the Bureau's operations relative to industry standards.
Specifically assess the relative effectiveness of continuing to market CMB as
part of the Greater Miami area versus developing a mechanism to focus
marketing resources on Miami Beach alone.
Study Organization and Responsibilities
The findings and recommendations from the study are summarized in the Executive
Summary, Section I, immediately preceding this introduction. An accounting of the
Miami Beach resort/room tax and its allocation for tourism and other uses is presented in
Section III. The results of the benchmarking task comparing the GMCVB with other
bureaus are summarized in Section IV. The significant questions and issues are analyzed
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB Introduction
ERA Project No. 14932 Page II-1
in Section V, including more detailed rationale and discussion of the recommendations
presented in the Executive Summary.
This study was managed by Steven E. Spickard, Senior Vice President, in ERA's San
Francisco office. Trudy McNulty, President, managed the TDA portions of the study.
Research and analysis was provided by Sujata Srivastava and Nadine Fogarty of ERA
and Heidi Whitten of TDA.
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB Introduction
ERA Project No. 14932 Page [I-2
SECTION III: MIAMI BEACH FUNDING OF GMCVB AND
RESORT/ROOM TAX ALLOCATIONS
Theis purpose of this section is to provide the fiscal context for the analysis of issues in
Section V. This section begins with a discussion of the background interlocal agreements
between the City of Miami Beach and the Greater Miami Convention and Visitors
Bureau leading up to this study. Information is also provided on the City of Miami
Beach's funding contributions to the Greater Miami Convention and Visitors Bureau. In
addition, the section provides a summary of the City of Miami Beach resort and room tax
collections and allocations, and a brief discussion of the Convention Development Tax.
City of Miami Beach Funding of GMCVB
Blue Ribbon Committee and lnterlocal Agreement, 1999
In November 1998, the City of Miami Beach re-examined and terminated its expiring
Interlocal Agreement with the Greater Miami Convention and Visitors Bureau, which had
been signed in 1993. In January 1999, the City negotiated a one-year contract with
GMCVB commencing in December 1, 1998 and ending September 30, 1999 (Fiscal Year
1998/1999). The Agreement created a Blue Ribbon Committee on Conventions and
Tourism (the Committee) to review and advise on the City's relationship with GMCVB
and to potentially negotiate a new Agreement, depending on the Committee's
recommendations.
The Committee held meetings and presentations from GMCVB, the City of Miami
Beach, the Miami Beach Visitor and Convention Authority (VCA), and SMG. Based on
the final recommendations from the Committee, the City entered into a new Agreement
with the GMCVB for a three-year term, with a two-year renewal option. The
Agreement's regular term commenced on October 1, 1999 and terminated September 30,
2002. The optional renewal term would commence October 1, 2002 and end on
September 30, 2004.
The Interlocal Agreement contained certain conditions and terms recommended by the
Blue Ribbon Committee, including:
· Specific marketing and promotion activities emphasizing Miami Beach;
· Financial reporting by the GMCVB;
· City representation on GMCVB's Board of Directors, Executive Committee and
Sub-Committees; and
· Structure of the City's financial contributions to GMCVB.
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB GMCVB Funding and Resort Tax
ERA Project No. 14932 Page III-1
Structure of City Contribution to GMCVB
The 1999 Interlocal Agreement established the current funding structure of Miami
Beach's contribution to the GMCVB. Funding to the GMCVB is based on a base fee of
$5 million annually from the City of Miami Beach's resort tax revenue. This portion is
allocated only from the two percent municipal resort tax on hotel rooms, food and
beverage, and alcohol generated in Miami Beach.
If actual collected resort taxes exceed the actual collected amount in the base fiscal year
(FY 1999/2000), then an additional contribution is made to the Bureau. Under the terms
of the agreement, beginning in FY 2000/2001 the City of Miami Beach contributes 25
percent of the incremental increase in resort tax collections above the base level.
Mayor's Blue Ribbon Tourism Task Force and lnterlocal Agreement, 2002
In May 2002, as the regular term of the 1999 Agreement approached expiration, the City
and GMCVB signed another Interlocal Agreement. The Agreement earmarked funds for
specific tourism promotion and marketing activities in Miami Beach, as identified in the
Mayor's Blue Ribbon Tourism Task Force Report. According to the Agreement,
GMCVB will target at least $1 million each year of the renewal term for the initiatives
below:
· Cultural/Special Events -- Development and promotion of cultural and special
events in Miami Beach.
· Sales/Marketing -- Expansion of efforts to promote Miami Beach as a
"happening place."
· Film/Fashion/Entertainment - Target marketing efforts to film, fashion and
entertainment industries.
· Small/Boutique Hotels -- Development of marketing and web page especially for
small and boutique hotels.
· Destination Video Campaign - Promotion of Miami Beach as a tourism
destination.
· Airport Partnership - Enhancement of visitor experience at Miami International
Airport.
· Gay and Lesbian Travel - Expansion of advertising, and publications targeted to
gay and lesbian visitors; research trends in gay and lesbian visitation to Miami
Beach.
· Service/Attitude - Partnership with VCA to develop improvements in service and
attitude for hospitality employees.
· Heritage/Preservation Programs - Maximizing use of MiamiBeach.com website.
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB GMCVB Funding and Resort Tax
ERA Project No. 14932 Page Ili-2
· Public Relations - Implementation of campaign for public awareness of benefits
of tourism to the community.
Miami Beach Resort Tax
The City of Miami Beach collects resort tax revenues generated from the sales of hotel
rooms, food and beverage. There is a two percent tax collected on rooms, food and
beverage, as well as a one percent tax collected on rooms only. For the purposes of this
report, the two percent tax will be referred to as the "resort tax", while the one percent tax
will be referred to as the "room tax".
Miami Beach resort and room tax revenues for Fiscal Years 2000/2001, and 2001/2002,
andag we!! as the majeff.~' zf 2002/2003 are presented in Table III-1. As shown, resort
and room tax revenue totaled $23.7 million in FY 2000/01 and dropped to $21.4 million
in FY 2001/029/91 fbllowing the events of 9-11. Total accrued revenues have more than
recovered in FY 2002/03, to $24.7 million. The total resort taxes generated were nearly
$19.5 million in FY 2000/01, and $17.8 million in FY 2001/02, and $20.5 million the
following fiscal year. Room tax revenues decreased from $4.2 million in 2000/01 to $3.6
million in 2001/02 and increased again to $4.1 million in FY2002/03.
Table HI-1
City of Miami Beach Resort and Room Tax Revenues by Month, 2000-2003~
Fiscal Year 2000/2001 Fiseal Year 2001/2002 Fiscal Year 2002/2003
Month 2% 2 1% ~ Total 2% 1% Total 2% 1% Total
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
Total
$1,347,250 $291,484 $1,638,734
$1,553,662 $307,694 $1,861,356
$1,551,363 $333,962 $1,885,325
$1,989,338 $477,508 $2,466,846
$2,044,648 $510,817 $2,555,465
$2,385,673 $556,636 $2,942,309
$1,827,087 $418,177 $2,245,264
$1,775,147 $351,024 $2,126,171
$1,322,050 $270,178 $1,592,228
SI,390,672 $270,005 $I,660,677
$1,353,555 $271,725 $1,625,280
$933.450 $164,199 $1.097.649
S 19,473,895 $4,223,409 $23,697,304
$1,047,867 $201,764 $1,249,631
$1,255,779 $226,828 $1,482,607
$1,545,550 $310,530 $1,856,080
$1,846,999 $409,581 $2,256,580
$2,046,674 $438,783 $2,485,457
S2,388,734 $502,267 $2,891,001
$1,628,995 $323,500 $1,952,495
$1,395,655 S267,435 $1,663,090
$1,192,158 $242,366 $1,434,524
$1,203,819 $219,164 $I,422,983
$1,261,765 $241,758 $1,503,523
$I.014.957 $169A61 $1.184.418
$17,828,952 $3,553,437 $21,382,389
$1,255,512 $237,979 $1,493,491
$1,490,489 $300,488 $1,790,977
$1,756,296 $330,112 $2,086,408
$1,875,292 5411,389 $2,286,681
52,24~577 $501,314 $2,747,891
S2,465,367 $520,199 $2,985,566
$1,92~407 $409,982 $2,336,389
SI,753,930 $351,112 $2,105,042
SI,382,211 $251,738 $1,633,949
$1,540,354 $291,482 $1,831,836
SI,519,906 $285~13 $1,805,819
$1,333,041 $232.780 $1,565,821
$20,545,382 $4,124A88 $24,669,870
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB GMCVB Funding and Resort Tax
ERA Project No. 14932 Page III-3
Fiscal Year 2000/01 was a strong year for resort and room taxes until the worldwide
travel slump began, precipitated by the events of 9-11-01, as shown in Figure III-1.
Revenues were distinctly lower for the majority of Fiscal Year 2001/02, although the
peak month of March came within a couple percent of the pre-9-11 year. Revenue trends
have recovered relatively well, and the total for the ~' .... 19 intentS:; ..... 2002/03 Fiscal
Year is actually 15 percent of the prior year and slightly ahead of the 2000/01 base year
in the figure. Peak months for resort and room tax generation appear to be from January
to May, reflecting the importance of the winter and early spring seasons for tourism to
Miami Beach.
Figure HI-1
Seasonality of Resort and Room Tax Revenues
$2,500,000
$2,000,000
$1,500,000
$1,000,000
$500,000
$0
'""~"FY 00/01 '"'~'FY 01/02 · FY 02/03
In FY 1999/00, the GMCVB received a $5 million base fee (see Table I11-2). In FY
2000/01 am3..~,:Y'gOO4402=resort taxes collected exceed the levels collected in the base
year. Therefore, the total contribution to GMCVB was $5.4 million in FY 2000/0L and
$6.35.0 million in FY 2001/02, and $5.4 million in 'FY 2002/03. The VCA received
$951,000, $839,000, and $946,000 in $ ..... . .... and $I.3 mi!lizn ~uring those years.
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB GMCVB Funding and Resort Tax
ERA Project No. 14932 Page III4
Therefore the City's contribution of resort tax dollars to tourism and promotion totaled
e~ ~qq o million in FY 1999/00, $6.4 million in a~d FY 2000/01, ~ ,,..,$5,8 million in
FY 2001/02, and $6.3 million in FY 2002/03.
Table III-2
Ci,ty of Miami Beach Tourism and Promotion Payments
For Fiscal Years Ending September 30
Fiscal Year VCA GMCVB Total
1999/00 (GMCVB Base Year) $911,498 $5,000,000 $5,911,498
2000/01 $950,519 $5.437,379 $6,387,898
2001/02 $838,968 $5,000,000 $5,838,968
2002/03 $945,914 $5.362,102 $6,308,019
Figure III-2 graphically illustrates the City's allocation of total resort tax revenues in the
last ..... c tbur.years, which ranged fi.om $21.~ to $25.-8 million. The largest share of the
City's contribution was used to offset the General Fund costs of providing municipal
services to tourist and convention visitors. The General Fund received between $11.1
million and $15.016.3 million from FY 1999/00 to FY .......... 2002/0~. Debt service
expenditures totaled between $1.8-7__million and $2.3 million, and other expenditures
were approximately $500,000 to $1.4-0~million during this period. Finally, the City
allocated ~t~t~ ¢'st~t'~ '
fi.om $ ..... 600,000 to $ .... 1,000,000 to resort tax operations.
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB GMCVB Funding and Resort Tax
ERA Project No. 14932 Page III-5
Figure 1II-2
Allocation of Miami Beach 2% Resort Tax Revenue ($ millions)
$0.9
$0.7
90%
80% ---
$0.9 $0.8
$0.6 $1,0
$12A $15.0
S2.3
$5A
$0.9
$0.8
$16.3
$5.3
FY 1999/00 FY 2000/01 FY 2001/02 FY 2002/03
I · Debt Service ~ Other [] Gen. Fund Tourist Expense · Resort Tax Oper. · VCA
I
GMCVB
Expend.
Source: City of Miami Beach
Using FY 2001/02 to illustrate the use of resort tax proceeds to offset the impacts of
visitation, the bulk of funds are allocated to Police/Security ($4.4 million),
Fire/Emergency Services ($2.1 million) and Beach Patrol ($4.4 million) departments. In
addition, the City contributes resort tax funds to Maintenance ($1.2 million), Code
Compliance ($1 million), and the Bass Museum ($960,000). The City's Art, Culture and
Education Department, Cultural Arts Council, and Maintenance also receive resort tax
funds.
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB GMCVB Funding and Resort Tax
ERA Project No. 14932 Page III-6
In addition to the two percent resort tax, Miami Beach also collects a one percent room
tax, which was enacted to incentivize and construct two convention hotels. In the budget
for FY ~C~:1-/0~2002/03, Miami Beach allocated approximately $~.33.5 million from the
one percent room tax. One half of the funds ($2.21.7 million) were allocated to the
Redevelopment Agency for debt service. Community consensus was achieved by
allocating fifty percent of the funds to North Beach, Middle Beach, and South Beach
neighborhoods. Each of the neighborhoods received approximately $720,990577,000.
Figure 111-3 illustrates the allocation of the one percent room tax.
Figure IH-3
Actual Miami Beach One Percent Room Tax AHocation, FY 2002/03
$577,382
$577,382
$1,732,146
· RDA City Center Bonds · North Beach [] Middle Beach [] South Beach
A full economic and fiscal impact analysis of tourism is beyond the scope of this study,
but the reasons why communities invest in the development and promotion of a tourism
industry are discussed in Appendix A to this report. In essence, tourism can provide a
base for a local economy, where spending by visitors brings new money into the area,
creating multiplied economic benefits to community residents in the form of more jobs,
greater incomes, and improved business opportunities (in addition to such quality of life
issues as greater restaurant and entertainment offering, cultural opportunities, etc.) When
properly taxed, tourism can generate the resources necessary to pay not only the ongoing
costs of promoting the industry, but also the costs of maintaining the environment and
providing the "product" that attracts the visitors in the first place.
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB GMCVB Funding and Resort Tax
ERA Project No. 14932 Page 111-7
The visitors to Miami Beach are currently generating $20 to $25 million a year in
revenue that is controlled completely by the City of Miami Beach. A significant portion
of this is available to defray the General Fund costs of providing services to visitors. In
this context, a $5 to $6 million annual investment in tourism promotion on a national and
international scale is not unreasonable. In a properly constructed economic'development
strategy, the revenues generated by visitors should be sufficient to pay for all three
categories of expenditures: General Fund services consumed by visitors, regional
promotion, and local tourism promotion and product development.
Convention Development Tax
Miami-Dade County collects a number of taxes on hotel rooms and on food and beverage
operations within hotels and motels. These have totaled $50 to $60 million in recent
years (see Table III-~3_). For most of these revenue sources, the City of Miami Beach's
Resort Tax supercedes the County's tax structure and the County does not collect within
Miami Beach. The one significant exception, however, is the Convention Development
Tax (CDT).
Table III-3
Countywide Convention & Tourist Tax Collections
Revenue Sources FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002
Convention Development Tax (CDT)
Tourist Development Tax (TDT)
Professional Sports Facilities Franchise Tax
Subtotal Bed Taxes
$29,187,730 $30,999,229 25,650,342
$11,679,472 $12,158,910 $10,199,562
$5,839,735 $6,079,458 $5,099,781
$46,706,937 $49,237,597 $40,949,685
Tourist Development Surtax (TDS)
Homeless and Domestic Violence Tax
Subtotal Food and Beverage Taxes
$4,061,577 $4,246,649 $4,004,403
$8,651,487 $9,199,433 $9,555,130
$12,713,064 $13,446,082 $13,559,533
All Tourist Taxes at the Count~ Level
Source: Miami-Dade County Finance Department.
$59,420,001 $62,683,679 $54,509,218
The CDT is a three percent tax on hotel rooms collected throughout Miami-Dade County,
with the exception of the cities of Surfside and Bal Harbour. Based on the collections of
the one percent bed tax within Miami Beach, visitors to Miami Beach have been
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB GMCVB Funding and Resort Tax
ERA Project No. 14932 Page III-8
contributing between one-third to one-half of the total $25 to $30 million CDT to Miami-
Dade County. According the enabling legislation (Florida Statute 212.0305) two-thirds
of the CDT proceeds "shall be used to extend, enlarge, and improve the largest existing
publicly owned convention center in the county;" and "one-third of the proceeds shall be
used to construct a new multipurpose convention/coliseum/exhibition center/stadium or
the maximum components thereof as funds permit in the most populous municipality in
the county" which in this case was the Miami Arena.
Once these initial projects have been developed and their debt services paid down to a
level where surplus CDT begins to be generated, somewhat more discretion is given in
the future use of CDT funds. Priority to "extend, enlarge, and improve" the Miami Beach
Convention Center should be maintained, however. An "Analysis of the Potential
Expansion of Convention Facilities in Greater Miami and the Beaches" (November 5,
2001)A · ......... :~ r- ...... ^ ........... c~.~., has already been completed which
identified the need for an additional 50,000 square fbot multi-purpose general
assembly/banquet hallba!!r.~.~m.· v~---~-~f: .... ~l..~ ~.-~^*~'~- c~:~:,:~o~.....o in order to maintain the
competitiveness of the Miami Beach Convention Center in attracting future business.
Investments in the convention package offered by the Greater Miami area have the power
to repay themselves by attracting additional convention business, generating more
income for regional residents (economic impact), and producing more tax revenue
through the CDT and the other taxes on visitors. The temptation to spend CDT resources
on sports, performing arts, museums, and entertainment facilities that serve primarily
residents should be resisted. Very little new economic impact will repay that form of
expenditure.
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB GMCVB Funding and Resort Tax
ERA Project No. 14932 Page 111-9
SECTION IV: COMPARISON OF GMCVB WITH OTHER
BUREAUS
Introduction
Not all readers of this analysis will be professionals in the travel and tourism field. Thus,
some context is required to put the activities of the Greater Miami Convention and
Visitors Bureau (GMCVB) into perspective. This section serves to provide the
"benchmark" context for the analysis of issues presented in Section V of the report. For
example, where this context section provides comparative information on bureau size and
funding, Section V will discuss possible ways to measure bureau performance. The
ERA/TDA consulting team has procured permission to use aggregate data on the industry
for this purpose from the International Association of Convention and Visitors Bureaus
(IACVB), through their most recent industry survey. This survey, conducted in 2001,
collected data from the "most recent fiscal year," which in the majority of cases was
1999-00. ERA and TDA have contacted selected individual bureaus for permission to
use similar data to compare with either the Greater Miami area or the City of Miami
Beach when viewed alone. The GMCVB provided data for FY 1999-00 to the
ERA/TDA team, because the GMCVB did not participate in the 2001 IACVB survey.
The City of Miami Beach also provided comparison data that was used by the 1999 Blue
Ribbon Committee. That data also came from this same industry source, the IACVB's
survey that was conducted in 1998 and reflected primarily 1997 data. IACVB does not
conduct this survey every year, and prior publication dates include 2001, 1998, 1996,
1993 and 1989. The IACVB survey is the only source of this type of information that is
assembled (with significant effort) by each bureau in a format that allows for cross
comparison, and the 2001 report is the most recent.
First, in the section below the range of activities of a modem bureau is described. Next,
the general scale of the Greater Miami tourism marketing effort is placed in the context
of other comparable destinations in terms of the two key indicators: total hotel rooms
needing to be filled, and total budget resources available. The context for the City of
Miami Beach alone, assuming $5 and $6 million budgets;!~ is also presented. The
business characteristics of the GMCVB are then compared to averages and typical
business practices for the collection of bureaus with budgets in excess of $10 million per
year as provided by the IACVB survey. Finally, the GMCVB is compared with seven
comparable destinations.
The seven destinations to be studied in this benchmarking task were identified through
interviews conducted in the first phase of the project in Miami and Miami Beach.
Questions were asked, which reflected the criteria for inclusion, such as: What are the
peer destinations? Which locations compete with Miami and Miami Beach? which
' bureaus have to deal with similar markets or similar issues as the GMCVB? The result of
.~_..N_ol.c_:_...&tl~r_.n_ga_j.!~_t.)_u_L$_3_3.0_=000 in mandated supp_;~_~l._fgr oOcr p_r~g_ra_~_n_.%_.t_lk~ GM_CVB considers its base
year budget of $5.0 million to be worth $4.67 million in ftmding for Bureau aclivities.
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB Comparison of GMCVB with Other Bureaus
ERA Project No. 14932 Page IV-I
this line of open-ended questioning produced the following list of major destinations and
CVBs. The consulting team contacted all seven of these bureaus to collect benchmarking
information. They are:
· Atlanta,
· Dallas,
· Los Angeles,
· New Orleans,
· Orlando/Orange County,
· San Diego, and
· San Francisco.
The Role of a Convention and Visitors Bureau
Throughout the US and around the world the economic benefits of tourism are being
recognized as a catalyst for revitalizing or enhancing the business climates of
destinations. Tourism expenditures enable cities to build, protect and preserve their
communities while providing amenities for residents.
To achieve these benefits, cities, counties and regions form destination management and
marketing organizations most frequently known in the U.S. as convention and visitor
bureaus (CVBs). First begun in Detroit in 1914, CVBs have grown and expanded to
meet the demand for more sophisticated marketing to attract increasing numbers of
business and leisure visitors to their communities.
To meet the increasing competition, CVBs have gotten larger and more regional in their
approach, i.e.:
· To encompass a more diversified tourism product to attract a more diversified
market.
· A more diversified tourism product creates critical mass of varied attractions:
- Visitors rarely travel for a single component such as a particular hotel,
restaurant, or attraction. Only by joining together to create a critical mass that
can develop an image can a destination be successful. Even a powerful
magnet such as Disney World would not be able to achieve acceptable sales
without the surrounding support services in the Orlando region. The
additional area attractions make Disney a weeklong vacation that attracts
repeat vacationers rather than a 3-day visit.
· To generate a larger budget and greater resources to market to a wider audience.
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB Comparison of GMCVB with Other Bureaus
ERA Project No. 14932 Page IV-2
· To produce greater returns on investment for communities, non-profit
organizations and businesses.
Sample marketing and promotion activities of a modem CVB include:
· Actively promote leisure visitation via advertising, direct mail, trade and
consumer shows and cooperative promotions.
· Creation of special interest niche promotions such as boutique hotels, gay/lesbian,
antiques, art galleries and museums, architecture, garden tours, shopping, history
and heritage, sports, golf and recreation.
· Actively solicit meetings and conventions, trade shows, reunions, special events,
sporting activities, etc. via trade shows, advertising, telemarketing, sales missions,
direct sales, direct mail, familiarization (FAM) tours, specialty promotions, bid
presentations, and membership/attendance at industry events.
· Actively solicit motorcoach tour operators via industry trade shows, advertising,
hosting familiarization tours, special promotions, NTA, ABA, OMCA, etc.
· Work with domestic and international tour operators to develop independent
travel (FIT) and group tour packages.
· Conduct an active public relations program to promote the image and attractions
of the destination via press kits, press releases, maintenance of slide files,
solicitation of journalists for familiarization tours, sales missions to targeted
media outlets, etc.
· Develop and maintain an interactive web site as a marketing tool for information
and promotion, including links to all participating communities.
· Produce a Visitor Guide that includes attractions, festivals and events, cultural
and recreational opportunities, lodging, shopping, dining, transportation/
accessibility, community overviews and heritage and historical information.
· Produce a Destination Planner Guide for the group market that includes details on
accommodations, properties with lodging, meeting space and amenities
specifications; public assembly facilities; special event venues such as park
facilities; and businesses which service the group market such as florists, printers,
and transportation.
· Produce a Calendar of Events promoting fairs, festivals, cultural activities, and
seasonal events.
Sample services a CVB provides include:
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB Comparison of GMCVB with Other Bureaus
ERA Project No. 14932 Page IV-3
· Provide meeting/event planner services, i.e. site inspections, registration services
for meetings, housing bureau, and coordination of local services such as
transportation, official welcomes and entertainment.
· Manage a professionally staffed business office during business hours Monday-
Friday year round.
· Manage a professionally staffed Visitor Information Center(s) 7 days/week, year
round including call center and visitor inquiry response via mail, fax, and email.
· Communicate with area communities and businesses re: upcoming events for
cross-promotional opportunities for residents and visitors.
· Provide business leads to area lodging properties, public assembly facilities,
special event venues and businesses that provide services for groups.
· Bids/proposal preparation for solicitable multi-property meetings and events
· Attendance building assistance for meetings, welcome packets for delegates
· Meeting planner site inspections for prospective groups.
Sample CVB activities for tourism infrastructure development include:
· Evaluation of missing elements of the visitor attraction and services package.
· Advocacy for supplying those missing elements (i.e. hotels, age specific
attractions, transportation mechanisms, etc.)
· Development of "soft" products, i.e. walking tours, driving tours, special interest
packages, etc.
It is important to note that destination marketing requires a very integrated approach.
Different business segments such as convention and leisure should be coordinated to
reinforce each other; marketing cannot be separated from service provision; and
marketing components should not be separated (i.e. consumer advertising from trade
show promotion, etc.) in order to maximize effective and efficient use of available funds.
Key Comparable CVBs by Size of Budget and Room Count
A reasonable tourism effort affords a destination the marketing resources necessary to
attract visitors and to be competitive in the marketplace. Four different mechanisms were
evaluated to identify the competitive peer groups for the City of Miami Beach and for
Greater Miami. Note that while these comparisons are ways of evaluating the adequacy
ofresoumes bureaus have to do their jobs, they are not performance measurements per se.
Methods of measuring performance are discussed and presented in Section V.
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB Comparison of GMCVB with Other Bureaus
ERA Project No. 14932 Page IV4
1. Evaluating the competitive budgets of comparably sized CVBs to determine "how
loud" the bureau's voice would be in the marketplace.
2. Comparing average budgets of CVBs nationally with similar room counts.
3. Comparing U.S. CVBs with similar room counts to determine the average
spending per room.
4. Comparing the range of spending per hotel room in bureaus with comparable
room counts in Florida.
In order to determine "how loud" a destination's voice would be in the marketplace, in
Table IV-I, the largest budget destination U.S. bureaus are identified.
Table IV-I: Comparable Budgets of Large CVBs
Millions
Orlando/Orange County $33.9
Los Angeles $28.5
Kissimmee/St. Cloud $21.8
Miami 99-00 actual $18.5
Atlanta $18.2
San Diego $17.8
Dallas $16.1
San Francisco $15.8
Note: Las Vegas is omitted because its budget includes convention center operations and exceeds $150
million.
Source: 2001 IACVB Foundation Survey, used with permission from individual CVBs.
This data demonstrates that in terms of total resources Greater Miami is holding its own
among premier destination competitors. If the City of Miami Beach were to fund its own
convention and visitor bureau with the dollars it currently contributes to the regional
CVB effort, its competitors by size of budget would be those presented in Table IV-2.
Two rankings for Miami Beach are shown: one assuming $5 million in resort tax
proceeds alone is used to fund the City's tourism promotion effort; and another at $6
million assuming the City were able to leverage a 20 percent larger budget through
cooperation with private partners. Note that the City also funds the VCA, arts programs,
and other programs that benefit tourists and conventioneers.
Table IV-2: Competitors in the CVB
Budget Size $4-7 Million
Millions
Seattle/King County $6-7
Charlotte $6-7
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB Comparison of GMCVB with Other Bureaus
ERA Project No. 14932 Page IV-5
Palm Beach County $6-7
Milwaukee $6-7
Anchorage $6-7
Tampa $6-7
Branson Lakes $6-7
Miami Beach (with 20% leverage) $6.0
Portland OR $5-6
Albuquerque $5~6
Cincinnati $5-6
Columbus OH $5-6
Louisville/Jefferson County KY $5-6
Austin $5-6
Irving TX $5-6
Scottsdale $5-6
Miami Beach (public funds alone) $$.0
Tucson $4-5
Fort Worth $4-5
South Walton, FL $4-5
Birmin[,,ham $4-5
Source: 2001 IACVB Foundation Survey.
Were the City of Miami Beach to pull out of the Greater Miami CVB, using the same
dollars to fund their own effort, Miami Beach would be competing with a peer group of
destinations that have much less cachet, and their voice in the marketplace would be
much less audible. If the loss of City of Miami Beach dollars were not recouped from
other sources, Greater Miami would similarly drop in its ability to get its message out to
prospective visitors. The point is that the Greater Miami area has a larger presence in the
national and international marketplaces when the resources of the City and the rest of the
region are combined.
The primary indicator of the size of the job a CVB has to do is the number of hotel rooms
in the bureau's jurisdiction that need to be filled on an ongoing basis. As can be seen in
Table IV-3, the Greater Miami metropolitan area has a hotel room inventory similar in
scale to such other major metro areas as San Diego, Phoenix, and Dallas. In contrast, the
City of Miami Beach alone is in the same league as Tampa, Albuquerque, and Austin.
Table IV-3: Comparing CVBs Nationally by Similar Room Count
Destination Sleeping Room
Count
Los Angeles 110,140
Orlando/Orange County 102,412
Atlanta 88,000
Chical~o 81,000
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB Comparison of GMCVB with Other Bureaus
ERA Project No. 14932 Page IV-6
Washington, DC 64,935
Phoenix 51,000
San Diego 50,784
Miami 99-00 actual 49,000
Dallas 47,834
Salt Lake City 37,458
Denver 36,019
Detroit 33,469
San Francisco 33,000
Nashville 31,000
Kissimmee/St. Cloud 26,434
Philadelphia 25,016
Kansas City, MO 24,225
Cincinnati 22,879
Branson Lakes 22,500
Boston 21,700
Austin 21,198
Tampa 18,984
City of Miami Beach 18,500
Albuquerque 17,000
Tucson 15,350
Palm Beach County 15,293
Louisville/Jefferson 14,031
Count~ KY
Source: 2001 lACVB Foundation Survey.
The fourth indicator of CVB comparability is spending per room, calculated by the
consulting team by dividing the total CVB budget reported in the IACVB 2001 Survey by
the room count at the time. Destinations with fewer than 10,000 rooms were excluded
from the analysis, as well as Los Angeles with over 110,000 rooms (for which a
significant number do not relate to the tourism market in the greater Los Angeles
metropolitan area). The budgets of individual bureaus have not been reported to preserve
the confidentiality of the IACVB survey. The result is presented in Table IV-4.
Table I¥-4: Comparison by the Spending Per Room for U.S. CVBs with
Approximately 10,000 to 100,000 Hotel Rooms to Fill
Destination Spending Per Room
Kissimmee/St. Cloud $824
Baltimore $534
Boston $533
Irving TX $514
Milwaukee $492
San Francisco $478
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB Comparison of GMCVB with Other Bureaus
ERA Project No. 14932 Page IV-7
Palm Beach County $430
Fort Worth $413
Louisville/Jefferson Co., KY $401
Detroit $396
Scottsdale $387
Miami 99-00 actual $377
Philadelphia $367
San Diego $350
Albuquerque $335
Dallas $337
Orlando/Orange County $331
Tampa $326
Miami Beach (with 20% leverage) $324
Tucson $313
Kansas City, MO $296
Birmingham $294
Nashville $286
Miami Beach (public funds alone) $270
Branson Lakes $267
Austin $265
Minneapolis $263
Cincinnati $247
Portland OR $236
Charlotte $240
Seattle/King County $238
Salt Lake City $226
Atlanta $206
Denver $201
Phoenix $200
Washington, DC $145
Chical~o $130
Source: 2001 IACVB Foundation CVB Financial Survey; Tourism Development Associates 2003.
Kissimmee/St. Cloud is somewhat of an aberration due to the influence of Disney,
creating a budget disproportionately large compared to the number of hotel rooms in the
immediate vicinity. At $377 per room, the Greater Miami CVB has been spending more
to promote all hotel rooms in the region, including those in Miami Beach, than $5 million
or $6 million budgets would be able to produce for the City of Miami Beach alone.
It is important to note that no value judgment is attached to these numbers. There are
many factors that influence how much a destination might spend on attracting visitors;
i.e. value of tourism to the local economy, attractiveness of the destination, number of
markets in which a destination promotes, relative expense of those media markets,
competitive destinations, etc.
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB Comparison of GMCVB with Other Bureaus
ERA Project No. 14932 Page 1V-8
Table IV-5 presents a similar analysis for just the CVBs from Florida that participated in
the IACVB survey.
Table IV-5: Comparing The Range Of Spending Per Hotel Room
In Bureaus In Florida
Destination Sleeping Room Budget Spending Per
Count Room
Kissimmee/St. Cloud
South Walton, FL
Palm Beach County
Miami 99-00 actual
Orlando/Orange County
Tampa
Miami Beach(wt 2o%)
Miami Beach(public funds)
26,434 $21,780,000 $824
7,785 $4,500,000 $578
15,293 $6,580,000 $430
49,000 $18,497,000 $377
102,412 $33,921,000 $331
18,984 $6,180,000 $326
18,500 $6,000,000 $324
18,500 $5,000,000 $270
Source: 2001 IACVB Foundation CVB Financial Survey Tourism Development Associates 2003
Profiling the Greater Miami Convention and Visitors Bureau
In a comparative analysis of the Greater Miami Convention and Visitors Bureau vis a vis
other large convention and visitor bureaus with budgets in excess of $10 million
annually, the following charts are presented for data comparable to that collected in the
2001 IACVB industry survey. The consultant team also reviewed the similar data for
prior years that had been collected for the 1999 Blue Ribbon Committee.
· Organization Profile
· Accounting Treatment and Policies
· Funding
· Line Item Expenses
Table IV-6: Organization Profile
CVBs with Budgets $10,000,000 and Higher
Organization Structure
Independent 501 (c) (6)
City agency
Count), a~enc),
Count of Percent or Greater Miami
CVBs Number CVB
Surveyed in 1999-00
12 66.7% yes
2 11.1% n~o
4 22.2% n__~o
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB Comparison of GMCVB with Other Bureaus
ERA Project No. 14932 Page IV-9
Number of Years in
Operation (median)
Ending Month of Fiscal Year
June
September
December
Total Gross Revenue for
Recent Fiscal Year
Board of Directors (median)
Number of Voting Board
Members
Number of Individuals on
Executive Committee
Bylaws Specify the
Composition of Board
Number of Employees on
Staff (Median)
Full Time
Regularly Scheduled Part-Time
Full-Time Equivalent
Employees
Part-Time On-call Staff
Employees
Out-Of-Town/Satellite Offices
Have Out of Town Offices
Washington, D.C.
Chicago
London
Germany
New York
Los Angeles
Mexico
Tokyo
Other
18
16
15
17
13
11
19
15
19
14
16
15
11
7
43
47.4%
15.8%
36.8%
$27,047,602
($17,691,000
excluding Las Vegas)
32
9
64.7%
73.0
10.0
81.5
142.5
84.2%
18
no
yes
n._qo
$18,497,000
72
22
Yes; modified by
interlocal
agreements
68
0
64*
yes
yes
n(._2
In-market rep
only
yes
ye~
n~o
In-market rep
only
n_9_o
In-market rep
only
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB Comparison of GMCVB with Other Bureaus
ERA Project No. 14932 Page IV-10
Have Additional Corporations 5
Membership
Have members
27.8%
Visitor Industry
Human Resources
Council
14 73.7% yes
Number of members 14 1,331 1,100
% of Members Represented by:
Lodging 14 19.5% 20.4%
Restaurants 14 17.4% 8.5%
Retail 14 7.2% 5.0%
Convention Services/Suppliers 14 27.4% 28.8%
Other 13 30.7% 37.3 %
* FTE is lower than Full-Time due to unfilled positions.
Source: IACVB 2001 Used with permission.
As can be seen in Table IV-6, the Greater Miami Bureau is typical of other large bureaus
in its organizational structure as a 501 (c)(6), its size of total budget (within five percent
of the average for this group if Las Vegas is excluded), and its number of members (at
about 17 percent below the average).
Table IV-7 presents accounting policies of large bureaus and those of the Greater Miami
Bureau. The Greater Miami Bureau follows accounting practices that are consistent with
those of the majority of other large bureaus in the U.S.
Table IV-7: Accounting Treatment and Policies
CVBs with Budgets Higher than $10,000,000
Number of Average Greater
Respondents Miami
CVB
Treatment of Membership Dues
Monthly Financials
Cash 3 21.4% n~o I
Accrual 11 78.6% yes
Year-End Internal Management Financials
Cash 3 21.4% no I
Accrual 11 78.6% yes
Year End Audit Financials
Cash 2 14.3% nt._2
Accrual 12 85.7% yes
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB Comparison of GMCVB with Other Bureaus
ERA Project No. 14932 Page IV-11
Reserve Policy
Have a Formal Reserve Policy
Reserve Policy Tied to:
Cash
Total Budget
Net Asset/Fund Balance
Combination
Other
Designated Reserve Amount (%)
Financial Record-Keeping
Have an Annual Audit
Done by National Firm
Done by Local Firm
Internal Accounting is Outsourced
Contributed (Non-cash) Services
Track Contributed Services
19 100% yes
9 47.4% yes
10 52.6% n~o
0 0.0% no
12 75% yes
Internally reported
Book
Foomote
Neither
Externally Reported:
Book
Foomote
Neither
6 50% yes
3 25% n~o
3 25% n~o
8 66.7% yes
3 25.0% n__qo
1 8.3% n~o
Event Revenue and Expense
Internal and External
Net Rev-Exp/event
Gross-Rev + Exp separately
Printed Collateral Material
Charge to One Department
Allocate to Multiple Depts
Charged Monthly
Charged Year-End
Charged Other
Use Outside Publisher
Publisher Rev/Exp Net
Publisher Rev/Exp Gross
2 11.8% no
15 88.2% yes
11 57.9% yes
8 42.1%
7 87.5% yes
0 0 n~o
1 12.5% no
17 89.5% yes
4 33.3% yes
8 66.7% n_9_o
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB Comparison of GMCVB with Other Bureaus
ERA Project No. 14932 Page 1V-12
11 61.1% yes
2 16.7% n__qo
3 25.0% n_9_o
2 16.7% no
4 33.3% n~o
1 8.3% yes
6 17.0% 16.7%
$900,000
Hotel Rooms
Within Primary Funding City/County 19 37,596 49,000
Special Tax Rate for Restaurant Dining 2 1% 2%
Source: L4CVB 2001 Used with permission, and GMCVB.
Table 1V-8 presents typical funding patterns for large bureaus, along with that for
Greater Miami. It was suggested in an interview conducted by the ERA team at the
outset of the study that a CVB should raise all its funds privately. This is not the model
in use either in the U.S. or internationally. Most CVBs are a true public-private
partnership and rely on a combination of public and private funds for their operations. In
CVBs with budgets over $10,000,000, 95% receive room tax and 74% receive
membership dues. For these large bureaus, public funding as a percent of the budget
ranged from a low of 49% to a high of 100% with the median being 76% (half below/half
above). The Greater Miami CVB was at 82% for the comparable year.
Table IV-8: Funding for CVBs with Budgets of $10,000,000 and Higher
Funding Sources
Total Public Sources Funding
Percent of Total Funding
Total Private Sources Funding
Percent of Total Funding
Number of Average Greater
Respondents Miami CVB
19 $18,741,504 $15,237,181
19 72%* 82%
19 $6,446,467 $3,260,377
19 28% 18%
Total Funding 19 $25,187,972 $18,497,558
Funding from Public Sources
Room Tax:
Number Who Receive 18
Percent Who Receive 94.7%
Average Amount Rec'd $17,958,006
yes
$11,297,452
Resort Tax
Restaurant Tax:
Number Who Receive
Percent Who Receive
Average Amount Rec'd
General City Tax
Number Who Receive
Percent Who Receive
Average Amount Rec'd
2
10.5%
$2,080,492
l
5.3%
$6,043,325
yes
$3,939,729
no
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB Comparison of GMCVB with Other Bureaus
ERA Project No. 14932 Page IV-13
Other Primary City/County Funding
Number Who Receive
Percent Who Receive
Average Amount Rec'd
Secondary City Funding
Number Who Receive
Percent Who Receive
Average Amount Rec'd
Other Public Funding
Number Who Receive
Percent Who Receive
Average Amount Rec'd
Funding From Private Sources
Membership Dues
Number Who Receive
Percent Who Receive
Average Amount Received
Print Advertising
Number Who Receive
Percent who Receive
Average Amount Rec'd
Web Site Advertising/Links
Number who Receive
Percent Who Receive
Average Amount Rec'd
Cooperative Advertising
Number Who Receive
Percent Who Receive
Average Amount Rec'd
Promotional Participation
Number Who Receive
Percent who Receive
Average Amount Rec'd
Event Hosting
Number Who Receive
Percent Who Receive
Average Amount Rec'd
1
5.3%
$250,000
2
10.5%
$3,306,666
11
57.9%
$1,434,257
14
73.7%
$1,338,424
12
63.2%
$820,843
7
36.8%
$197,904
8
41.1%
$1,471,633
14
73.7%
$521,259
10
52.6%
$369,559
~n_o_
n__q
yes
yes
$1,138,223
yes
Yes
yes
$570,935
yes
$440,087
no
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB Comparison of GMCVB with Other Bureaus
ERA Project No. 14932 Page IV-14
Publication Sales
Number Who Receive
Percent Who Receive
Average Amount Rec'd
Merchandise Sales
Number Who Receive
Percent Who Receive
Average Amount Rec'd
E-Commerce Merchandise Sales
Number Who Receive
Percent Who Receive
Average Amount Rec'd
Ticket Sales
Number Who Receive
Percent Who Receive
Average Amount Rec'd
Service Fees
Number Who Receive
Percent Who Receive
Average Amount Rec'd
Convention Registration
Number Who Receive
Percent Who Receive
Average Amount Rec'd
Registrar Assistance
Number Who Receive
Percent Who Receive
Average Amount Rec'd
Convention Services
Number Who Receive
Percent Who Receive
Average Amount Rec'd
Building Revenue
Number Who Receive
Percent Who Receive
Average Amount Rec'd
5
26.3%
$29,284
5
26.3%
$43,002
1
5.3%
$72,255
4
21.1%
$1,051,675
10
52.6%
$330,116
6
31.6%
$407,755
7
36.8%
$673,363
5
26.3%
$116,443
5
26.3%
$5,939,846
no
planned
no
no
no
yes
$285,345
no
no
no
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB Comparison of GMCVB with Other Bureaus
ERA Project No. 14932 Page IV-15
Contributed (Non-Cash) Services
Number Who Receive
Percent Who Receive
Average Amount Rec'd
Interest and Other
Number Who Receive
Percent Who Receive
Average Amount Rec'd **
8 yes
42.1%
$1,408,138 $658,233
18 yes
94.7%
$727,503 $167,554
~.Note: of 19 CVBs with funding over $10 million, the median was 76% with the range from 49%-100%_.
comparable with the $167,500 GMCVB statistic.
Source: L~CVB 2001 Used with permission, and GMCI/B.
Table IV-9 presents a comparison of the typical use of bureau budgets. The Greater
Miami CVB spends proportionately less on personnel and more on direct promotion than
the average for large bureaus.
Table IV-9: Line Item Expenses
CVBs with Budgets of $10,000,000 and Higher
Personnel Costs
Total Personnel Costs (%)
Total Personnel Costs ($)
Direct Promotion
Total Direct Promotion (%)
Total Direct Promotion ($)
Other Expenses
Total Other Expenses (%)
Total Other Expenses ($)
Number of Average Greater
Respondents Miami CVB
17
18
31.6% 26.6%
$6,151,581 $4,908,094
17
18
50.8% 54.3%
$10,476,335 $10,019,320
17
18
15.8% 19.1%*
$2,767,390 $3,530,917
Total Line Item Expenses (%) 17
Total Line Item Expenses ($) 18
* Note: Other expenses included interlocals and allowances for bad debt.
Source: 121CVB 2001 Used with permission, and GMCVB.
100.0% 100.0%
$19,735,699 18,458,331
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB Comparison of GMCVB with Other Bureaus
ERA Project No. 14932 Page IV-16
Greater Miami Compared with Seven Major Destinations
In addition to benchmarking the GMCVB against statistical averages of large bureaus,
the ERA/TDA team has also compared the GMCVB with seven other bureaus with one
or more comparable or competitive characteristics with the Greater Miami area. Table
IV-10 presents a summary of the organization and structure of each CVB. The GMCVB
is a relatively young bureau, runs with a relatively lean staff, and has a relatively large
board, but is otherwise in the mid range of this set of peer CVBs.
Table IV-10
ORGANIZATION AND STRUCTURE
Orlando/
Greater Los New Orange San
Miami Atlanta Dallas Angeles Orleans Co. San Diego Francisco
Organization Structure 501(c)(6) 501(c)(6) 501(e)(6) 501(c)(6) 501(c)(6) 501(c)(6) 501(c)(6) 501(c)(6)
Years in Operation 18 88 44 24 36 17 47 92
Total Gross Revenue (Mil) $18.5 $13.3 $14.4 $28.6 $10.9 $33.9 $17,8 $15.8
Board of Directors
No. Voting Board Members 72 95 33 30 16 26 39 54
No, Individuals on Exec. Crate 22 27 12 9 8 1 I
Bylaws Specify Composition Yes i No Yes No No Yes Yes bio
No. Employees on Staff
Full-Time 68 78 86 100 78 142 97 73
FTE 642 84 87 I10 79 154.5 99 81.5
Satellite Offices Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Additional Corporations Yes 3 Yes No No Yes No No No
Membership
No. Members 1,100 1,500 1,055 2,400 1,280 1,523 1,708 2,085
1 lnterlocal agreements have added Board members.
2 FTE is less than Full-Time due to unfilled positions.
3 Visitor lndusay Human Resources Council.
Source: L4 CVB 2001; with permission and interviews with individual bureaus, and FY 1999-OO for GMCVB.
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB Comparison of GMCVB with Other Bureaus
ERA Project No. 14932 Page IV-17
In all of the CVBs examined, the majority of funding comes from public sources (see
Table IV-Il). By the accounting presented below, the GMCVB is at the bottom of the
peer group in terms of private participation. Accounting for private funding, however, is
complicated by the fact that some private participation in tourism promotion activities
takes the form of in-kind services or is provided through parmership agreements.
Table IV-11
COMPARISON OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE FUNDING
Orlando/
Greater Los New Orange San
Miami Atlanta Dallas Angeles Orleans Co. San Diego Francisco
Public Funding
Room Tax 65% 74% 53% 67% 56% 75% 54%
Restaurant Tax 12%
Other Public Funding 0% 2% 1% 2%
Total Public Funding 82% 65% 74% 53% 81% 56% 76% 56%
Total Public Funding ($) $15.2 $8.7 $12.0 $15.2 $8.9 $19.0 $13.6 $8.8
Private Funding
Total Private 18% 35% 26% 47% 19% 44% 24% 44%
Total Private Funding ($) $3.3 $4.6 $4. I $13.4 $2.1 $14.9 $4.2 $6.9
Total Fundin~ $18.5 $13.3 $16.1 $28.6 $11.0 $33.9 $17.8 $15.7
Source: lA CVB 2001; with permission and interviews with individual bureaus, and FY 1999-OO for GMCVB.
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB Comparison of GMCVB with Other Bureaus
ERA Project No. 14932 Page IV-18
In looking at where the money gets spent in Table IV-12, the GMCVB has one of the
highest percentages devoted to direct promotion, and has the lowest percentage spent on
payroll (which is consistent with the finding that the GMCVB has one of the smallest
staff sizes).
Table IV-12
COMPARISON OF EXPENSES
(Dollar Amounts in $ Millions)
Orlando/
Greater Los New Orange San
Miami Atlanta Dallas Angeles Orleans Co. San Diego Francisco
Subtotal Payroll and Related
Total Payroll Costs (%) 27% 40%
Total Payroll Costs $4.9 $5.3
Direct Promotion
Total Direct Promotion (%) 54% 45%
Total Direct Promotion $10.0 $6.0
Other Expenses
Other (%) 19% 15%
Other Expenses $3.5 $2.0
Total Expenses $18.5 $13.2
38% 23% 54% 28% 35% 40%
$6.5 $6.5 $5.1 $9.3 $6.2 $6.3
42% 53% 28% 64% 51% 44%
$7.2 $15.1 $2.7 $20.9 $9.0 $6.8
20% 13% 18% 8% 14% 16%
$3.4 $3.8 $1.7 $2.6 $2.5 $2.5
$17.0 $28.5 $9.5 $32.8 $17.7 $15.6
Source: 1,4CVB 2001; with permission and interviews with individual bureaus, and FY 1999-OO for GMCVB.
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB Comparison of GMCVB with Other Bureaus
ERA Project No. 14932 Page IV-19
SECTION V: ANALYSIS OF ISSUES
Introduction
A number of issues and questions were raised by the City of Miami Beach in their
Request for Proposals from consultants to assess the structure of the Greater Miami
Convention and Visitors Bureau and its relationship to the City. Additional issues and
questions were raised during the stakeholder interviews conducted by the ERA/TDA
consulting team. This section of the report presents an analysis of issues.
The goal of this study is to review and assess structural issues, and to recommend the
optimal structure for promoting Miami Beach's most important industry, tourism and
convention business.
Part of the review tasks require an understanding of the market context for Miami
Beach and Greater Miami, but this study is not a market assessment.
* The assessment of structural issues involves some investigations similar to those
required for an audit of the Bureau, but this study is not a Bureau audit.
· Some forward-looking recommendations from this study address long mn
strategic issues, but this is not a strategic plan.
A market assessment was prepared by the ERA/TDA team under a separate contract with
the GMCVB and is submitted under separate cover. The Bureau is also funding
preparation of a Strategic Plan that is ongoing at this time.
The issues analyzed below are interrelated. An attempt has been made to organize the
discussion starting with the most general issues, and become more specific after covering
basic groundwork. However, the ordering of issues is somewhat arbitrary and does not
necessarily imply priority or importance. For each issue below, findings of the consultant
team from our interviews and research are first presented, followed by a general
discussion that further defines the issue and describes considerations. Recommendations
from the consultant team are then presented. The most important findings and
recommendations have been summarized at the end of the section (and repeated in the
Executive Summary in Section I).
Perhaps the most general issue of all is why a community should seek to promote a
tourism industry in the first place. Analysis of this fundamental but basic issue has been
moved to Appendix A, for those seeking further understanding of how the tourism
industry works.
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB Analysis of Issues
ERA Project No. 14932 Page V-1
Issue: If No Marketing Structure Existed in the Region~ What Would be the
Optimal Model?
Findings
The question is being asked, if we had it all to do over again (i.e., if we had no marketing
and promotion CVB in place) would we structure an optimal marketing program the
same way?
Discussion
Absent any existing institutions or organizational structures, the City of Miami Beach
could market and promote their city and beaches to visitors through a variety of
mechanisms:
o
Marketing could be left entirely to the private sector, with hotels, commercial
attractions and other visitor serving businesses each marketing their own
businesses. Public resort tax proceeds could be used entirely to provide
municipal services to visitors.
The City could form a municipal depa, hnent to conduct marketing and
promotion, funded by a portion of the resort tax.
The City could issue an RFP and hire an advertising firm.
The City could form a public/private partnership including businesses within the
City limits to jointly promote the features of Miami Beach.
The City could join with other governmental entities in the area that stand to
benefit from enhanced visitation to form a special purpose regional governmental
agency.
The City could join with other governmental entities and businesses in the area to
form a region-wide public/private partnership to conduct marketing and
promotion. (This is the regional CVB model.)
In most of these instances, the City could contract with either profit-making or
not-for-profit businesses to conduct advertising, promotion, and other marketing
activities.
Leaving all marketing entirely to individual private businesses, as suggested in No. 1
above, would render the destination uncompetitive in the national marketplace against
more organized destinations (e.g., Orlando, New Orleans, etc.). Having the City form a
municipal division or department to undertake some tourism industry development
functions as suggested in No. 2 above is recommended below by the consultants, but only
as a supplement to other regional marketing and promotion efforts.
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB Analysis of Issues
ERA Project No. 14932 Page V-2
Advertising is one of the functions employed by a full service Bureau when marketing for
both leisure and convention visitors, and is generally provided by recruitment and
retention of a separate advertising fa-re. An alternative marketing model for the City
mentioned as No. 3 above would be to solicit and directly retain an advertising fn-m to
promote Miami Beach. Advertising is only one of many required marketing functions,
however, and a contract with an advertising firm would have to be augmented by
substantial investment by the City in other outside vendors or in-house capabilities to
perform additional necessary services such as: provide business leads to lodging
properties; coordinate the local business community to prepare bids/proposals for multi-
property meetings and events; conduct meeting planner site inspections for prospective
groups; staff a visitor information center; conduct familiarization tours; create special
interest niche promotions; synergistically coordinate marketing efforts with those of other
industry elements within the region; conduct long range strategic planning; promote the
tourism industry to the host community through education and special outreach
programs; and a wide variety of other critical functions. The consultants do not
recommend using an RFP process to hire an advertising firm, because such a firm would
not be able to perform the full range of services needed. The optimal model is to form a
public-private partnership of regional scope to perform these functions, including the use
of an advertising firm.
In most destinations convention and visitors bureaus have evolved as public-private
partnerships, because such arrangements are in the interests of~he-both partners. Because I
tourism is a highly competitive and fast moving business, methods for success are
necessarily different than methods for success in the public sector. Governments must
move deliberately and with great transparency, and thus tend to move relatively slowly.
Successful competition precludes complete transparency and requires destinations to be
flexible and fast moving in their marketing and promotion activities. For these reasons
and many others, governments generally f'md it highly advantageous to have a private
entity be their lead parmer in destination marketing (rather than forming a regional
government entity as suggested in No. 5). Nonprofit status for this private entity makes it
a more palatable recipient for public funding (see No. 7 above). At the same time,
governments must recognize that they are dealing with a private entities and not
governmental departments. An independent governing board of the promotion entity
makes decisions and policies.
There are also two fundamental forms of visitation to consider:
· Leisure (often called "tourism" in the industxy), and
· Convention.
The vast majority of destinations combine marketing for the two functions, under the
purview of a single entity. There are excellent reasons to have one organization do both
pieces:
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB Analysis of Issues
ERA Project No. 14932 Page V-3
The marketing effort to promote a destination is synergistic and consistent
with promoting to the planners who want to select destinations that are
appealing to attendees.
· There is no duplication of administration.
· There is no duplication of effort that must take place to solicit meeting
and event planners and service the individual attendees.
In the specific case of the Greater Miami area, the "tourism product" for both
conventions and leisure is integrated at a regional level with the airport, the convention
center, commercial attractions, the natural environment (e.g., beaches), dining and
accommodations all being necessary parts of the whole. Within this regional context, a
regional public-private partnership will be more effective than an individual city effort as
suggested in No. 4. The consultant team has also found in almost every interview with
industry professionals that the Miami and Miami Beach tourism industry is supportive of
a regional convention and visitor's bureau model.
Optimal Model for Marketing Tourism. Absent any existing structure, the optimal
model for the greater Miami area would be to have the individual communities of interest
(e.g., separate cities and/or major commercial attractions) band together to provide a
marketing organization to attract leisure travelers into the area. Once tourists have been
brought to the area, individual cities and commercial interests would then market to
increase their own capture of the pool of tourists. In concept, the GMCVB in the greater
Miami area is consistent with the optimal model.
Optimal Model for Marketing Conventions. In today's highly competitive market, a
national scale convention business requires a cohesive package that includes: large and
high-quality meeting and exhibition facilities; one or more headquarters hotels; additional
hotels with a willingness to "block" rooms; a major airport; smooth ground transportation
between airport, hotels and the convention center; interesting offsite event venues; and
casual dining and entertainment opportunities. The greater Miami convention package is
spread among multiple political jurisdictions. Absent any existing structure, the optimal
model for the greater Miami area would be to have the individual communities and the
businesses within them band together to provide a marketing organization to attract
convention travelers into the area. Once a major convention has been brought to the area,
individual hotels and their host communities would then submit bids and promote their
features to increase their own capture of the pool of conventioneers. In concept, the
GMCVB in the greater Miami area is consistent with the optimal model.
Recommendations
Although the consultant team considered other options for a structure for promotion of
conventions and leisure tourism for Miami Beach, at a conceptual level there was no
compelling reason to change from the current regional model.
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB Analysis of Issues
ERA Project No. 14932 Page V-4
· The City should remain a key stakeholder in the Greater Miami Convention &
Visitors Bureau.
In addition, the City should develop and expand their individual community
effort that works synergistically with the GMCVB. (The potential funding for
such an effort is described in more detail below.)
Issue: Identity and Brand - Miami Beach, Greater Miami, Miami and the Beaches~
South Florida
Findings
The ERAJTDA Team has found community identity to be an underlying issue related to
this study. Miami Beach citizens see Miami Beach, and especially South Beach, as the
reason that visitors come to Greater Miami and the defming image of the region.
Regional residents are clearly aware of the difference between Miami, Miami Beach, Bal
Harbour, Miami-Dade, etc. but it is common for people "at a distance" to confuse Miami
Beach with Miami. Miami Beach residents would prefer to see the Miami Beach name
used more prominently in the GMCVB's marketing efforts.
Miami Beach has worked hard to grow its way out of the doldrums of the 1970s and
1980s, and wants to be recognized as a separate entity and to be recognized for the
differences that make Miami Beach an attractive destination. It is understandable that
Miami Beach residents with pride in their community would adopt this viewpoint.
Discussion
The issue as it relates to Miami Beach as a tourism destination, however, is more
complex. Visitors rarely make a distinction between governmental jurisdictions. The
greater distance a visitor is traveling, the more the brand name may change; from South
Beach to Miami Beach to Miami to South Florida to Florida. International visitors may
even say they are "going to the U.S" when they intend to vacation in Miami Beach. All
of these names have brand value and the brand that should be used should change
depending on the target market. The name that should be used is the one that research
shows is the most effective in the market in which it is being used. (For example, a trade
show in Berlin may have pictures of South Beach in Greater Miami information in a
Florida section of the U.S sales area). It's important to understand that it doesn't have to
be either Miami OR Miami Beach; it can be Miami AND Miami Beach. The true
competition is the rest of the world beyond the Miami region.
Because of its unique and memorable name and the lack of geographic awareness by
visitors and prospective visitors, there will always be an assumption in the mind of many
that Miami Beach is the "beach part" of Miami. Visitors looking for a restaurant are
unaware of city lines. The confusion is built into the name. While local residents may be
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB Analysis of Issues
ERA Project No. 14932 Page V-5
intensely aware of the political boundaries between communities, the typical visitor is not
aware, and frankly does not care. Although the image is typically Miami Beach, often
more specifically South Beach, at the international and national scale the brand identity
for the region is "Miami."
Recommendations
1)
Under the nationally and internationally recognized brand name of "Miami," join
enthusiastically in the regional effort to make it as effective as possible in
bringing visitors to the region. Miami Beach hotels, restaurants and attractions
will then do their part in attracting them to Miami Beach and their sites. Just as
these individual components compete fiercely with each other to attract the visitor
to their restaurant, hotel, etc., they first join together with their regional
competitors to bring the visitors to the area. Unless that regional effort is
successful, they will have few visitors to compete for. Once a prospective visitor
has made the decision to come to the Miami area, the City of Miami Beach and its
businesses can compete against the others for the heart, soul and pocketbook of
the visitor.
2)
Once the visitor has set down his suitcase in the region, now the City of Miami
Beach has the opportunity to offer the best beach, attractions, shopping,
restaurants, clubs, museums and galleries, special events, sports, activities, as well
as the prettiest, cleanest, and safest streets, the best wayfinding signage, the
easiest transportation and parking.
3)
Actively support and participate in the marketing promotional programs of the
GMCVB to ensure that the City of Miami Beach is well represented. At the same
time, recognize that promotion of attractions outside of the City of Miami Beach
are an asset to the CMB by making the whole destination more attractive.
4)
The City of Miami Beach can and should provide an umbrella to cross promote
cultural activities, fairs, festivals, seasonal celebrations, filming and special events
to residents, visitors and day-trippers. A wide variety of special events will have
a promotional vehicle and clearinghouse in which to enhance their attendance and
economic viability. Residents and visitors will have a comprehensive calendar of
events featuring the multitude of activities available in the region. This will once
again string together a "mass" of activities creating compelling reasons to visit or
tour throughout the region.
5)
The City of Miami Beach should focus energy on continually refreshing and
renewing the destination of CMB with new attractions and new tourism
infrastructure. This will keep Miami Beach a strong destination when the trend
moves to the next hot spot.
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB Analysis of Issues
ERA Project No. 14932 Page V-6
6) The citizens in the city of Miami Beach need to realize that at an international
scale (representing roughly half their business), and in the majority of the national
market as well, the brand identity for their destination is simply "Miami."
Issue: Communication Between the Bureau and the City
Between individuals or between organizations, poor communication can be a contributing
cause of relationship problems, and improved communication can be part of the solution.
Findings
The ERA/TDA team has heard anecdotes during stakeholder interviews of
communication problems that lead to misunderstandings between the City and the
Bureau. At a grassroots level, there are Miami Beach citizens who do not appreciate the
importance of the tourism industry to their economy, and do not appreciate the role of the
Bureau in sustaining and enhancing the economic benefits of tourism. There is a lack of
confidence by the City in the Bureau and a sense that the City is "not heard." At the
same time, the Bureau is frustrated, feeling they make efforts to communicate and
include the City in all committees and efforts, yet they are still misunderstood. In the
process, the City has set itself somewhat apart from its major private tourism industry
players, to the point that some now perceive the City as "playing politics" with their
livelihood.
Misunderstandings and misgivings between bureau and host city are not unique to Miami
Beach and the GMCVB. This has been a reoccurring theme in the benchmarking
research at one time or another in many locations. The need for a sales organization to
respond flexibly to constantly changing marketing opportunities, and the need to spend
heavily on entertainment and promotion is often viewed with skepticism or even
suspicion by those in public service positions. This is one of the reasons why private,
non-profit bureaus have evolved to be independent of municipal governments in the first
place. On the other hand, the sales organizations need to remember that some of the
funding for their activities comes from public tax dollars, even if the taxes are paid by
visitors and not residents.
Although some try to dismiss the difficulties between the GMCVB and the City as typical
friction between a bureau and city government, the consultant team's in-depth interviews
indicate that the real and perceived dysfunction between the GMCVB and the City of
Miami Beach is significant, has worsened over time, and threatens to end the relationship
between them. The critical issue is how to start from this point and create a more
productive structure in which all parties win.
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB Analysis of Issues
ERA Project No. 14932 Page V-7
Discussion
The benchmarking research found a variety of models within the tourism industry for
how communication issues are dealt with in other cities. Most bureaus have some form
of Public Affairs or Community Relations Committee at the board level. As well as
monitoring the effectiveness of staff community relations efforts, these key board
members, sometimes augmented by members of the Executive Committee, will cultivate
relationships with other business leaders and with members of the local legislative body
to further understanding of the importance of bureau activities.
A relevant example can be drawn from the experience in Los Angeles. At one time the
bureau had close relationships with one or more members of the Los Angeles City
Council. The bureau's interests were maintained directly by the communication between
board members and individual city councilpersons, and mid-level staff of the bureau
could maintain a routine public relations program. This informal structure depended on
personalities and personal relationships at the board-council level. As the composition of
the council changed over time, however, newer council members were less familiar with
bureau objectives. Los Angeles found it had to create a much stronger structure at the
staff level to ensure public relations were handled adequately, even as personalities
changed within the structure. An executive position at the senior vice president level was
created to oversee all public affairs activities. The bureau in San Francisco has also
utilized this staff structure, placing community affairs at the executive level, and has
enjoyed relatively good relations with its constituent communities of interest as a result.
Recommendations
The goal of the consultants in formulating recommendations for this issue is to create an
optimal structure of positions and responsibilities that transcends the personalities who
may happen to be in place within those positions at any given point in time, so that the
effectiveness of communication at all levels will be maximized. Both the Bureau and the
City need high-level staff to facilitate future communication.
On the Bureau side, a new executive level position should be created with a title such as
"Senior Vice President of Public Affairs" or of "Community Relations." Existing
functions of membership, media relations, and other existing staff could be reorganized to
report to this executive. This new division should be responsible for cultivating a
positive view towards the tourism and convention industries among the residents of
Greater Miami, maintaining and growing the Bureau's membership within the business
community, and fostering relationships with the many governmental entities in the
Greater Miami area, including the City of Miami Beach. These functions are currently
diffused within divisions of the Bureau that are simultaneously pursuing multiple
missions, and too much of the communication load has been pushed up to the CEO, who
also has many other duties to attend to.
Sta-uctural Assessment of the GMCVB Analysis of Issues
ERA Project No. 14932 Page V-8
On the City side, until recently there has not been a senior level professional on staffwith
a sole focus on the tourism industry. The City's attempt to foster communication by
demanding more representation on the Board and Executive Committee has not
completely solved the problem. Too much of the communication load has been pushed
up to the City Manager, who has many other duties to attend to. The City has recently
hired a tourism professional who should move into a position to be the City's "point
person" in dealings not only with the Bureau, but with the Miami Beach tourism and
convention industry in general.
In a cooperative effort, the City of Miami Beach's designated tourism person should
become a key part of the GMCVB team, from research, analysis, and planning sessions to
implementation. This relationship should not be a "making a report" relationship, but
rather a "let's figure out how to do this together" relationship. It's important for both
parties to recognize that tourism is the lynchpin of the Miami Beach economy, not simply
"an important part". Therefore, the success of the GMCVB is critical to the City of
Miami Beach. Furthermore, it should not be surprising that the City of Miami Beach has
become the most concerned and involved partner among the Greater Miami entities that
support the GMCVB.
Issue: Strategic Plan
The Bureau's lack of a stakeholder approved Strategic Plan is a key contributor to
communication problems. The Bureau has a printed and Board-approved Program of
Work that outlines the marketing program, and this type of Program of Work is
commonly used by many bureaus in lieu of a Strategic Plan. However, in the context of
the current relationship, the GMCVB needs to have a Strategic Plan that includes:
· Agreement on goals and objectives.
· An awareness of market opportunities and constraints.
· Administration/organization.
· Product Development (While the Bureau may not budget specifically for
product development, it is an important role for the Bureau to be a facilitator
to encourage product development within its stakeholder communities.)
· Marketing.
· Community Relations.
In spite of many efforts on the part of the Bureau to be responsive to requests for
information from the City, the City has been frustrated by the tardiness of the Bureau's
long-term strategic planning effort. Although the Strategic Plan is now underway, the
City has been calling for such a plan for over four years in order to make clear directions
and priorities that would allow the City to better envision common goals and be a better
partner in working with the Bureau.
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB Analysis of Issues
ERA Project No. 14932 Page V-9
General Issue: How Adequate is the Governance, Structure~ Processes and Overall
Operations of the Greater Miami CVB?
Discussion
Having determined the GMCVB structure represents an optimal model for marketing the
greater Miami area in concept, the next area of investigation is whether it performs in
practice. To provide a basic context, the ERA/TDA consultant team conducted a
benchmarking analysis in Section IV comparing the GMCVB with national averages for
bureaus of its size, and also against seven specific peer bureaus. Additionally we
identified and analyzed tourism issues that are specific to Miami Beach vis a vis the
convention and visitors bureau.
This general issue is so broad, however, that it is best addressed as the following series of
sub-issues:
Bureau Governance and Funding Issues,
· Bureau Operations and Performance Measurement Issues,
· Bureau Marketing Issues,
· Research,
· Advertising, and
· Promotion.
Issue: Bureau Governance
The consultant team found in interviews that the Bureau needs to ensure that their
governance structure is well understood in the community. It is as follows:
· The bureau is a membership organization with over 1,000 private sector members.
· Members elect the Board with the slate going out 60 days ahead of the annual
meeting.
· The Board Nominating Committee prepares the Board slate. (The City of Miami
Beach provides a list of names for the Nominating Committee for its share of the
slate.) Nominating Committee ensures proportionate representation.
· The Immediate Past Chair of the Board chairs the Nominating Committee.
· The Executive Committee appoints the Board Nominating Committee. If 10
pement of the membership disagrees with the Nominating Committee, then a
ballot is taken. Disagreements are communicated via letter to the Board
Secretary.
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB Analysis of Issues
ERA Project No. 14932 Page V-10
............. m ....... Nommatmg Committee selects the Executive
Committee members (except for Committee Chairs).
Committee Chairs are selected by the Board Chair and sit on the Executive
Committee.
The Bureau program of work and other issues are considered and debated by
Committees and recommendations are made to the Board and Executive
Committees for review and decisions.
Discussion
With 72 members, the GMCVB board of directors is more than double the average size
of 32 for major bureaus, and with 22 members the Executive Committee is also more
than double the average size of 9. The Atlanta bureau, which also serves a multi-
jurisdictional metro area, is the extreme exception of the large bureaus with 95 board
members and an executive committee of 27. While there may be good reasons to have a
large board, reducing the size would bring it more in line with national norms and could
improve efficiency.
It is the responsibility of the Board of Directors to ensure:
· That the organization maintains credibility and public trust, with specific
credibility of the Bureau Chair, President and key staff.
· That the governance structure fairly represents the stakeholders and operates in a
manner that instills confidence in the organization.
· That the organization has a clear mission, goals and objectives and an approved
plan to achieve them.
· That the organization is adequately funded.
· That the organization operates in a professional manner and within industry
norms.
· That the organization achieves acceptable levels of success within the context of
existing constraints and influences.
· That the key executive effectively carries out the Board directives to achieve these
responsibilities.
It is the responsibility of the Bureau President to ensure core competencies and
performance of key staff within the organization to achieve the overall organization
mission, goals and objectives.
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB Analysis oflssues
ERA Project No. 14932 Page V-11
In the context of the last couple of contract renewals the City has required representation
on the Bureau's Board and on the Executive Committee proportional to the amount of
funding provided by Miami Beach. Representation should appropriately be a consistent
part of the GMCVB bylaws rather than be subject to constant modification by individual
contracts.!
Despite representation, the City feels it has insufficient input in part because substantive
work is done at the committee level, and at the full Board level only review and approval
are discussed. The City has already taken steps to resolve this situation by hiring a
tourism professional to participate with the staff and committees on a day-to-day working
level.
Minor Recommendation
The Bureau board is relatively large. Reducing the size of the Board, or more
importantly the Executive Committee, could possibly make Board participation more
meaningful.
More substantive recommendations on governance are intertwined with funding issues,
and are presented below after the funding issue discussion.
Issue: Overall Funding for Tourism Industry Needs
Findings
It is beyond the scope of this study to estimate the total fiscal impact of tourism and
convention visitation on the City of Miami Beach. In interviews conducted by the
consultants, however, it was mentioned that the $20 to $25 million in resort tax and hotel
tax revenues generated within Miami Beach are totally consumed by the dual needs of
providing funding for the Bureau and also for General Fund services provided to visitors.
If one assumes that General Fund services have the highest priority, then t~he implication
of such a situation as described to the consultants is that ~
r,_ ........ ~ t':.,~ ~ ~.-~ ....... ~ '~'~ tax ....... ~ ~ · ~:~:+~ ~ if any
additional tourism Programs are to be funded at the City level, the funding would have to
be deducted from funds flowing to the Bureau.
Discussion
In a classic tourism-based economic development strategy, the system should be self-
funding. If each additional visitor is actually costing the City more money than it can
afford, then the City should either reduce the quantity of visitors, or raise the price
charged to visitors, or both. Raising the resort tax or the hotel tax could serve to
accomplish both. On the other hand, careful analysis may demonstrate that the net fiscal
J.._I?l_t)_t.~_$ha_~ tl!.c_,_()~I_~_v_~ byl~[5_x.y_e.r_s~ cl~._an~g_ed [9 s'.a3~.t_~at wha-[e-xe-r~i5 spe_c_i[~g_d_.iB eac!L~g!'eement with the
City of Mimni Beach will take effect without need of further amendment to the bylaws,
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB Analysis of Issues
ERA Project No. 14932 Page V-12
h_eg_e_~[s__of ~_u. ri_s_~ exceed c9_s~ts, w_Ltb_£e_so_~_cgs_r_e__m.a_i__n_iug t_o_.~_.~d_t_ourisrn__d__e_v_e_lo_p_m__~e3~
and promotion efforts at the regional and City levels, as well as provide an adequate level
of General Fund services.
Recommendations
1. The City should conduct whatever analysis necessary to determine the fiscal
impact of visitation on the City.
2. If such a study indicates it is warranted, the City should increase the taxes on the
visitor industry in order to achieve a balance so that sufficient resources are
available to provide services to visitors, and to continue the product development,
advertising and promotion that are necessary to maintain the industry in the
future.
3. If resources are fbund to be adequate at existing tax levels, then priorities will
need to be set on distribnting $25+ million per year mnong General Fund,
regional, and City level tourism development and promotion efforts.
Issue: Bureau Funding
Findings
The Greater Miami Convention and Visitors Bureau funding consists of 82 percent from
the public sector and 18 percent from the private sector. The comparable national
averages are 72 pement and 28 percent respectively for large bureaus with budgets over
$10 million.
Approximately one-third of public funding (typically between 30 and 35 percent) is
received from Miami Beach with the majority of the balance from Miami-Dade County.
Great care is taken to ensure that participation on Boards, committees, and amount of
advertising is allocated to Miami Beach proportionately.
Discussion
There is no specific budget that is "fight" for a regional marketing effort; it is a
community decision, made in the context of other priorities. The GMCVB budget places
it in the top tier of U.S. bureaus, those with budgets over $10 million. In determining the
adequacy of the budget, stakeholders must recognize that competition between
destinations is high-stakes, fierce and with variables constantly changing. A budget that
may feel appropriate this year may feel inadequate next year if competitors dramatically
increase their CVB budgets or improve their tourism products. A community may feel
comfortable spending less than a competitor if its destination is easy to market because of
its high appeal quotient; if its target markets have lower media costs; if it has
proportionately fewer rooms to fill; if its "tourism package" has few weaknesses; if
seasonality is minimal or if tourism is a smaller portion of the area economy. A
community may want to spend more than a competitor if it has weaknesses in its tourism
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB Analysis of Issues
ERA Project No. 14932 Page V-13
package, it has large numbers of rooms to fill, it is severely impacted by seasonality, its
target markets are diverse and have high media costs, or if tourism is critical to its
economy.
Part of the funding issue is the length of the contract. The CVB has suggested a ten-year
contract so that it may plan for the future and commit to multi-year marketing programs.
The City has preferred shorter-term contracts to ensure greater Bureau responsiveness.
The most recent bi-annual contract renewal negotiations were coupled with a specific list
of"targeted initiatives" identified by a Blue Ribbon Committee.
The current contract outlining a million dollars for "targeted initiatives" has several
implications. The Miami Beach tourism industry felt that it was the only way to get the
Bureau to be responsive to their needs as identified in the Blue Ribbon Task Force. From
all accounts it appears that there is agreement that the targeted initiatives are good
directions for the Bureau to pursue. Notwithstanding that assessment, the consultants
recommend that this approach be abandoned in future contracts for the following reasons:
(a)
(b)
(c)
Targeted initiatives should be identified at the staff research, committee, liaison as
well as community level and put into the annual program of work.
Targeted contributions essentially reduce the membership participation in the
CVB by that amount. If targeted initiatives are not appropriate for the overall
bureau effort but are determined to be of value to parts of the bureau service area,
they can be negotiated separately for fees over and above the membership
participation fee determined by formula.
Targeted initiatives may change within a contract period, some becoming less
important and other unidentified initiatives coming to the fore.
Recommendations
Funding Mechanism. A consistent and assured funding mechanism would improve
performance of the existing working structure between the City and the Bureau, and
reduce a source of historical contention. Historically, the City's financial participation in
the Bureau has been negotiated every two years. This protracted program identification
and negotiation process is not the most effective use of staff time or that of the business
people in the industry who have participated in the process. The optimal structure would
involve a formula based contribution coupled with a long-term agreement, providing
greater consistency of funding, yet still fluctuating with macro-economic industry
performance. The City would fund additional direct marketing initiatives, and address
local needs from visitor-generated revenues.
Governance. In the context of the last couple of contract renewals the City has
negotiated increased representation on the Bureau's Board and on the Executive
Committee. Miami Beach provides approximately one-third (ranging from 30 to 35
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB Analysis of Issues
ERA Project No. 14932 Page V-14
percent) of funding from the public interlocal partners, and representation on the Board
and key committees is proportional to this one-third financial support. Even so, the City
feels their influence over Bureau direction is still insufficient. On the one hand, the
Bureau cannot cede majority control of the Bureau to a minority parmer, for example
functioning like a department of the City of Miami Beach, without alienating the other
interlocal partners and the private contributors (both financial and in-kind) that are so
essential to an effective national and international sales effort. On the other hand, Miami
Beach also invests financially in the tourism industry by being the host to the majority of
visitors (and bearing the General Fund cost impacts of visitation). The consultants
recommend an implementation process to an optimal state would be to:
1) Agree to specific goals and objectives through a shared strategic planning
process;
2) Establish a level of Bureau funding, reserving other portions of the $20+ million
in visitor-generated funds for General Fund costs and local Miami Beach
programs;
3) Set a long term automatic formula to provide that funding to the Bureau;
4) With influence in proportion to financial support participate enthusiastically in
the Bureau governance process, but on a daily operating basis let the Bureau
pursue its mission of marketing all of Greater Miami to the larger world; and
5) Establish a tourism industry development ftmction within the City to handle those
initiatives that are of most interest at the local Miami Beach level.
Issue: GMCVB Operations and Evaluation
Findings
The GMCVB is within the norm for major bureaus in terms of:
· Organizational structure,
· Accounting practices,
· Use of satellite marketing offices,
· Size of membership, and
· Most other routine practices and features.
Compared to other bureaus with budgets over $10 million the GMCVB:
· Runs with a relatively lean staff (64 GMCVB FTEs vs 81.5 national average),
· Spends proportionately less than the average large bureau on payroll (21.2
percent GMCVB budget vs. 31.6 percent national average), and
· Spends more than the average large bureau on direct promotion (62.4 percent
of GMCVB budget vs. 50.8 percent national average).
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB Analysis of Issues
ERA Project No. 14932 Page V-15
Annual financial audits are conducted by an independent national accounting firm to
ensure that funds are managed responsibly.
The GMCVB measures itself on industry standards for evaluation, which include both (a)
efforts and (b) results.
Efforts, which include identifying whether tasks outlined in the Program of
Work, are performed, i.e. Xnumber of trade shows attended, Y number of fam
trips conducted, etc. These efforts are evaluated at the committee level and
reported to the Board.
· Results, which include both convention results and leisure (also called
tourism) results.
Specific Issue: What are Appropriate Performance Measures for the Bureau?
In general, CVBs use a variety of performance measures to measure their success.
Internally, these performance measures are used to monitor the effectiveness of
individual departments and the results of specific promotional efforts. CVBs are also
increasingly required to report their performance to outside organizations, especially ones
that provide funding or other support. However, it can be very difficult to measure the
success of a CVB. First and most importantly, many factors can influence an area
convention and tourist market, including fluctuations in the economy, national and
international events, cultural trends, and competitiveness of the local tourism product. As
a result, it is difficult to isolate the impact of CVB efforts and initiatives, and to
determine their success. Due to regional differences, it is also difficult to compare the
success of CVBs across geographic areas. Finally, many of the benefits of a CVB are
difficult to measure. For example, it is often very difficult to determine the number of
leisure visitors to an area, and to calculate their economic impact.
The Intemational Association of Convention and Visitors Bureaus (IACVB) has led a
multi-year effort to establish standard industry measurements that determine the
effectiveness ofa CVB. Some proposed measures are still being debated, and some were
just approved in October of 2003. While it is very difficult to compare between bureaus,
a variety of statistics can be used to gauge a Bureau's success over time in its own
market, and compared to its own stated goals. These statistics typically fall under the
categories of 1) leisure market, and 2) convention market, and are discussed separately
below. Following is a discussion regarding proposed equations that can be used to gauge
the overall success of CVB efforts, and recommended practices.
Leisure Market
The impact of CVB efforts on leisure travel is significantly more difficult to quantify than
convention travel. For instance, although the majority of GMCVB marketing and
promotion dollars go toward leisure, it is difficult to measure the success of these efforts
because of the difficulty of quantifying the total number of visitors to the area and
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB Analysis of Issues
ERA Project No. 14932 Page V-16
identifying what among the myriad factors that influence travel decisions made them
choose Miami or Miami Beach for this trip.
Typical
statistics used to gauge the relative extent of leisure travel are listed below:
Hotel tax revenues;
Hotel occupancy rates;
Hotel average daily rates;
Estimated number of visitors;
Attendance at visitor centers and other tourist destinations such as museums,
monuments and festivals;
Estimated visitor spending;
Estimated visitor-related jobs; and
Website visits.
GMCVB provides comparative occupancy rates and average daily rates to their
stakeholders. This information is obtained from Smith Travel research, an independent
consultant.
Convention Market
The IACVB has formulated and just approved a set of standard industt~ definitions and
recommended performance indicators for the convention industry. Once implemented
nationwide, these efforts could help to improve understanding of CVB operations, and
may eventually allow some comparisons between CVBs. The IACVB Convention
Industry definitions are presented in Appendix B.
Corresponding to the "efforts" and "results" distinction drawn above, the IACVB divides
these statistics into two categories: activities and performance measurements. IACVB's
definitions for the two categories are described below:2
Activity: A physical act in the convention sales process, e.g., attending a
tradeshow, generating and sending a lead to a hotel, conducting a familiarization
tour.
Productivity Measurement: As an organizational tool, a metric that helps to define
and quantify the efficiency, effectiveness and success of convention sales efforts.
Implementation of this policy of metrics will yield actionable tools that the sales
force and management can use for short- and long-term enhancement of the
CVB's sales efforts. As an accountability measure, it functions as a means by
which interested parties can determine the sales efforts' (and the CVB's) impact
on resource investment.
2 IACVB Convention Sales Activity and Productivity Measurements, www.iacvb.org.
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB Analysis of Issues
ERA Project No. 14932 Page V-17
The IACVB recommends "core" measurements for all CVBs, as well as "supplemental"
measurements that can also be used to gauge performance. These measurements are
listed below:
Recommended Activity Measurements: · Number of bids
· Number oftradeshows attended
· Number of outside sales trips
· Number of clients/potential clients visited
· Number of direct mail campaigns
· Number of familiarization tours
· Number of participants (planners only) on familiarization tours
· Number of client site inspections
· Number of telephone call reports
· Number oftelemarketing campaigns
Recommended Productivity Measurements (Core):
Leads
· Number of Leads
· Lead Room Nights (estimate)
Bookings
· Hotel Events
· Number of Bookings
· Booked Room Nights (estimate)
· Booked Attendance (estimate)
· Booked Attendee Spending (estimate)
Citywide/Convention Center Events
· Number of Confirmed Bookings
· Booked Room Nights (estimate)
· Booked Attendance (estimate)
· Booked Attendee Spending (estimate)
Number of Contracted Bookings
· Booked Room Nights (estimate)
· Booked Attendance (estimate)
· Booked Attendee Spending (estimate)
Lost Opportunities
· Number of Lost Oppor~mities
· Reason for Lost Opportunity
· Lost Room Nights (estimate)
· Lost Attendance (estimate)
· Lost Attendee Spending (estimate)
Cancellations
· Number of Cancellations
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB Analysis of Issues
ERA Project No. 14932 Page V-18
· Reason for Cancellation
· Cancelled Room Nights (estimate)
· Cancelled Attendance (estimate)
· Cancelled Attendee Spending (estimate)
Number of Leads per Tradeshow attended by CVB sales staff
Supplemental Productivity Measurements: · Number of Tentatives
· Tentative Room Nights (estimated)
Overall Performance Measurements
The IACVB has proposed a formula to calculate CVB return on funding, presented in
Figure V-1. While this sort of measurement may be generally indicative of performance
of a CVB especially over time within its own market, as discussed previously, there are
significant limitations to using this sort of quantitative measurement of success to
compare different bureaus.
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB Analysis of Issues
ERA Project No. 14932 Page V-19
Figure V-I
IACVB TOTAL RETURN ON FUNDING CALCULATION
Ratio Convention Return of Funding + Tourism Return on Funding
Total Return on Funding
Ratio Convention Promotion to Funding Convention Return on Promotion Convention Return on Funding
Calculation Convention Promotion Exnendltore~ x Dollars Snent by Convention Visitors = Dollars Soent bv Convention Visitors
Total Bureau Funding Convention Promotion Expenditures Total Bureau Funding
Definition
Indicates how efficient a bureau is at
utilizing tax payer dollars in promoting
its destination for conventions.
Indicates how effective a bureau's
promotional efforts are in attracting
convention dollars to its community.
dollars generated per dofiar of
community funding.
Tourism Return on Funding
Ratio Tourism Promotion to Funding
Calculation Tourism Promotion ExpendRures
Total Bureau Funding
Tourism Return on Promotion
Dollars Spent by Leisure Vlsllors
Tourism Promotion Expenditures
Tourism Return on Funding
Dollars Spent by Leisure Visitors
Total Bureau Funding
Definition
Indicates how efficient a bureau is at
utilizing tax payer dollars in promoting
its destination for tourism.
Indicates how effective a bureau's
promotional efforts are in attracting
tourism dollars to its community.
Indicates the amount of tourism dollars
generated per dollar of community
funding.
*Promotion to Funding Ratios: The higher the value, the more efficient the bureau is at spending taxpayer money for its intended puq~ose.
*Return on Promotion Ratios: At a minimum, this value should equal I. Any value less than I indicates that a bureau's promotional
efforts are ineffective.
*Return on Funding Ratios: The higher the value, the more successful the bureau is at bringin8 dollars to its community.
Source: IACVB
Another measurement indicator of bureau success is private sector support both through
discretionary membership dues and participation in cooperative marketing programs.
Key tourism industry business support for the GMCVB demonstrates that the private
sector believes the GMCVB produces results. In interviews conducted by the consultant
team, verbal support for the GMCVB by the private sector was almost unanimous.
However, it should also be pointed out that at 18 percent, the private funding for the
GMCVB was among the lowest of the large bureaus in the IACVB survey.
Most of the performance measurements discussed on the previous pages are currently in
use by the GMCVB and set in conjunction with the industry. Trends are bein~ tracked by
the GMCVB in resort tax revenues, hotel occupancy rates, hotel average daily rates,
number of visitors website visits and membership dues. The GMCVB agrees with the
IACVB that performance measures initially should be measures at~ainst itselt:
Discussion and Recommendations
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB Analysis of Issues
ERA Project No. 14932 Page V-20
The ERA/TDA study has focused on addressing what we believe to be the critical issues
that will determine the future structure of the CMB/GMCVB relationship.
Can the GMCVB improve any of its specific practices and efforts? The
answer is the same for any organization - "of course," and they should strive
to do so.
· Does the GMCVB operate its organization within industry standards? Yes.
· Does the GMCVB operate within the norms for competitor bureaus? Yes.
· Does the GMCVB conduct a professional marketing program? Yes.
· Does the GMCVB achieve satisfactory bottom line results for ADR and
occupancy? Yes, surpassing the Florida and national averages.
· Does the GMCVB hold the trust and confidence of all its key stakeholders?
No. Without changing this answer to "yes," objective and positive answers to
the other questions take a backseat. The most basic responsibility of the
GMCVB Board is to ensure that the organization is credible and that both the
elected and appointed leaders hold the community trust.
Issue: Marketing
Destination marketing is a sophisticated and highly competitive win/lose business, but it
is not a science; it uses science to improve its art. The science provides such foundations
as good market research, identification and targeting of the most desirable customers, and
understanding of macroeconomic trends. Even so, the art requires taking risks both
creative and considered. When the risk is successful, the destination has succeeded.
When the risk fails, it often is considered to be the fault of the CVB.
Yet many factors outside the control of destination marketing organizations may have
great impact, i.e. airlines, terrorism, public safety issues, hospitality service issues,
increased numbers of rooms may temporarily lower occupancy rates, poor business
management may make some businesses do poorly, competitor destinations may increase
their product appeal or their marketing, etc. Both destination success and failure is
collaborative. The CVB is only one component. Nevertheless, any CVB can and should
be constantly challenged and challenge itself to improve. The success of the CVB is
ultimately defined by the success of the destination.
Research
Findings
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB Analysis of Issues
ERA Project No. 14932 Page V-21
GMCVB contracts with a professional research firm and has good research, done to
industry standards. The research data, derived from visitor intercept surveys and other
sources, are made available to stakeholders. Markets (geographic, demographic and
psychographic) are selected based on research. Additional research and analysis could
provide ever more specific target markets, although at some point there are diminishing
returns to further investment in research.
Discussion and Recommendations
All marketing must be customer driven, therefore all marketing must be research driven
in order to understand the customer. Thus it follows that a CVB can never do enough
research; the reality being there are limited resources to conduct it.
The upcoming strategic plan should do an analysis of the existing research and in
conjunction with the industry leaders, determine the types of research that is-are desired I
and an acceptable rotation of different studies that can be supported by the research
budget. Some research must be done on a regular basis while other studies may be done
intermittently. As a part of the Market Assessment, the ERA/TDA team provided an
auxiliary memo to the GMCVB recommending additional types of research that may be
desirable, including conversion studies of advertising.
Existing research indicates that the high value customer includes the conventioneer
(higher expenditure); the cultural and heritage traveler (longer stay; higher expenditure),
the international visitor (longer stay; higher expenditure) and the off-season traveler
(lower ADR but a point of occupancy is more valuable to the community in the off
season than the high season).
GMCVB should provide research analysis assistance for interested stakeholders either
through meetings or memos accompanying data.
Advertising and Promotion
· The Bureau does industry standard trade shows, cooperative promotions, has
international representation, and builds long-term relationships with the travel
trade.
· The Bureau has helped land some outstanding business; i.e. two Pow Wows
(US trade show for international tour operators) and two Super Bowls.
· Cooperative advertising leverages about $6-7 million additional advertising
per year.
· CVB has an active public relations program and hosted 2200 travel writers
last year.
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB Analysis of Issues
ERA Project No. 14932 Page V-22
Issue: Appropriate Tourism Responsibility of the City of Miami Beach Apart from
the Bureau
The City of Miami Beach has a relatively high degree of community involvement in
tourism issues, reflecting the importance the industry has in the community and also
reflecting the volunteerism embodied in previous "Blue Ribbon" efforts. We believe this
ongoing civic involvement can be focused in a positive direction with the addition of a
specific tourism staff position within the City that can act as a liaison between city
interests and the regional efforts of the Bureau. At the same time, this new position can
manage the city-specific issues in the community.
Although we recognize the universal truism that "there is never enough money", the City
of Miami Beach is in a relatively good position with a def'med tourism taxing mechanism
that generates substantial revenues to participate in a regional effort, a local effort, and
support the necessary infrastructure. Invesmaent in developing and promoting the
tourism industry has the potential to pay dividends, in the form of positive community
economic impact, and increased tax revenues.
In positioning Miami Beach within the region, there are several points of difference. The
Miami Beach image is that of "the beach", specifically South Beach and all the lifestyle,
ambiance and recreation that implies. This image clearly differentiates it from the rest of
Greater Miami. The hot, trendy, hip image of the beach is currently in vogue and useful
to the City but it is important to build a stronger foundation beneath that image for when
it may no longer be as trendy.
Positioning that incorporates the unique culture and heritage of the area, the Art Deco
district and the South Florida beach lifestyle offer opportunities to build this foundation
in a manner that (a) is authentic and (b) has long lasting appeal. This positioning of the
City of Miami Beach is compatible with both the high value target customer desired by
the community and the demographics and psychographics of the existing customer base.
In the attraction of tourism and convention business to Miami Beach there are three major
partners and many individual players: the City, the Bureau, and the operator of the
convention center, SMG, are augmented by individual efforts of hotels, restaurants,
transportation and service providers, etc. Even with an optimally structured regional
bureau in place, there are still activities the City should take responsibility for. These
include:
· Product development
The City of Miami Beach has recognized the importance of renewing
and refreshing the Miami Beach tourism product, most specifically
with their support for major new convention hotel product. While
smaller accommodations properties may see this as the city supporting
a competitor, in fact, the critically needed large properties make it
possible for many more groups to come to Miami Beach during all
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB Analysis of Issues
ERA Project No. 14932 Page V-23
seasons of the year; bringing their economic impact to spread around
the community and exposing many new visitors to the charms of the
destination.
Miami Beach tourism strengths are recreation, image, culture and
heritage. The city should expand their product development effort to
promote more attention to the culture and heritage aspects of the
destination because they attract the same high value customer
demographic that currently comes to Miami Beach. That demographic
has been demonstrated to be slightly older, more educated, higher I
household income, visitors who stay longer, and spend more.
Additionally, the culture and heritage of Miami Beach can be
promoted in all seasons. Current upscale programs such as Art Basel
contribute to this image and salable packages can be created and
promoted more heavily.
While the Bureau should be focused primarily on international and
national marketing reach, the City may wish to focus some energy on
closer local and regional business. Regional draws such as festivals
and events, specifically off-season and high image, can be developed
and promoted with the recognition that events require substantial time
and financial resources. City resources may focus on packaging and
maximizing promotion of existing events that may not yet be fulfilling
their tourism potential.
Wayfmding needs to be improved in Miami Beach with both signage
and personal information. The City is currently undertaking a $1
million wayfinding initiative.
With shopping the number one visitor activity nationally, Miami
Beach, with assistance from their regional bureau, could maximize
their visitor revenues by developing, branding and promoting a Miami
Beach shopping experience.
Community Education, Hospitality Training and Visitor Welcome
Services
The City should work with the industry to develop a community
education program that continually educates residents about the value
of tourism to the local economy and quality of life. This is a regional
issue as well, and the Bureau should also have an active role in this
effort.
Visitor information services seem particularly weak. The visitor
center at the Chamber is tucked away from the mainstream of crowds.
During a site visit, the consultants were given little assistance. The
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB Analysis of Issues
ERA Project No. 14932 Page V-24
kiosk information was very limited. Also there was no obvious source
of information "on the beach".
The city should continue its host program efforts to coordinate
welcomes, handle complaints, arrange for permits and city services,
and provide local information.
Local and regional planning and promotion
It is in the best interests of the City of Miami Beach to continue to
expand its active parmership collaboration with the Bureau to promote
the brand, Miami. However, because the image of the brand is Miami
Beach/South Beach, much of the successful promotion will feature that
image as one of the key attractors of the brand. Apart from the
Bureau's mission to reach out far beyond the regional borders to
attract individual and group visitors, the City may want to solicit
additional visitation from the Greater Miami area to come to the
Beach. This is wholly appropriate and should be done with City funds
not part of the Bureau effort. Prioritization of use of City funds for
city-specific marketing is a local decision.
Ongoing maintenance of the tourism infrastructure through the full
range of General Fund expenditures
The City has been doing a good job about keeping the streets clean,
addressing safety, parking and traffic issues; supporting a sustainable
convention center, and providing necessary General Fund City
services to support a major tourism economy. This is also City
specific, rather than Bureau mission, and critical for future success.
As the City prioritizes its City-specific efforts, some of these can be implemented more
easily by the City issuing RFPs to make things happen rather than simply responding to
grant requests. In the design of existing grant programs, care must be taken to ensure that
valid and needed requests for funding will genuinely support increased tourism as
opposed to supporting the operations of resident amenities.
Summary of Maior Findings and Recommendations
Many recommendations, some crucial and some merely consultant suggestions, have
been put forward in the preceding discussions of the various interrelated issues. The
most important of the recommendations may be summarized in the following points.
These points will also be repeated in the Executive Summary along with the important
findings from Section III.
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB Analysis of Issues
ERA Project No. 14932 Page V-25
Quality of the Relationship Between Bureau and City. The ERA/TDA consultant
team has found the quality of the relationship between the GMCVB and the City is
currently poor, and obviously has been deteriorating in recent years. The degree of
dysfunction in the City-Bureau working relationship threatens to diminish the ability of
the Bureau and City to continue growing thc economic benefits derived from a healthy
tourism-based economy.
Strategic Plan. One fundamental cause of dysfunction in the relationship has been the
lack of a Strategic Plan articulating shared goals and objectives. Although the Strategic
Plan is now underway, the City has been calling for such a plan for over four years in
order to clarify directions and priorities for all parties that would allow the City to better
envision common goals and be a better partner in working with the Bureau. This
Strategic Plan should encompass more than a marketing work plan. It should begin with
a process to achieve input and buy-in from all the regional partners and clearly define the
agreed upon goals and objectives of the GMCVB. It should: set goals and objectives
based on a strategic analysis of the research (including research on competitors); identify
target markets for attracting visitors; position the various Greater Miami (and Miami
Beach) tourism products within the competitive field; suggest what new tourism and
convention products should be developed; prioritize improvements in the tourism
infrastructure; etc.
Communication Between Bureau and City. Communication problems can be a
contributing factor to a declining relationship, and improved communication can be part
of the solution. While it is possible for gifted individuals to overcome even a poor
structure in order to rescue a relationship, the focus of this analysis is on how to design an
optimal structure that maximizes the probability of a productive working relationship,
regardless of the personalities involved. The consultant recommendation is that each
party develop a high level staff position that has primary responsibility for representation
to the other party. The City has recently hired a tourism professional that could function
in this role. The recommendation for the Bureau is to create a new executive position,
perhaps with the title Senior Vice President of Public Affairs, to have primary
responsibility for communicating with constituents in the greater Miami area, including
the City of Miami Beach. Examples of how such a position within a bureau's
organizational structure has been used very effectively are San Francisco and Los
Angeles.
Governance. In the context of the last couple of contract renewals the City has
negotiated increased representation on the Bureau's Board and on the Executive
Committee. Miami Beach provides approximately one-third (ranging from 30 to 35
percenO of funding from the public interlocal partners, and representation on the Board
and key committees is proportional to this one-third financial support. Even so, the City
feels their influence over Bureau direction is still insufficient. On the one hand, the
Bureau cannot cede majority control of the Bureau to a minority partner, for example
functioning like a department of the City of Miami Beach, without alienating the other
interlocal partners and the private contributors (both financial and in-kind) that are so
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB Analysis of Issues
ERA Project No. 14932 Page V-26
essential to an effective national and international sales effort. On the other hand, Miami
Beach also invests financially in the tourism industry by being the host to the majority of
visitors (and bearing the General Fund cost impacts of visitation). The consultants
recommend an implementation process to an optimal state would be to: (1) agree to
specific goals and objectives through a shared strategic planning process; (2) establish a
level of Bureau funding, reserving other portions of the $20+ million in visitor generated
funds for General Fund costs and local Miami Beach programs; (3) set a long term
automatic formula to provide that funding to the Bureau; (4) with influence in proportion
to financial support participate enthusiastically in the Bureau governance process, but on
a daily operating basis let the Bureau pursue its mission of marketing all of Greater
Miami to the larger world; and (5) establish a tourism industry development function
within the City to handie those initiatives that are of most interest at the local Miami
Beach level.
Brand Identity. There has been much local debate over the whether or not the Bureau
gives sufficient weight to the "Miami Beach" destination in its marketing of the region.
Clearly Miami Beach is a major destination within the region; over 75 percent of all
overnight guests go to Miami Beach during their stay, and over 40 percent stay in Miami
Beach lodging. While local residents may be intensely aware of the political boundaries
between communities, the typical visitor is not aware, and frankly does not care.
Although the image is typically Miami Beach, often more specifically South Beach, at
the international and national scale the brand identity for the region is "Miami."
Performance Measures. The City has requested performance measures to evaluate the
GMCVB, or any other alternative structure, in future years. Recognizing that no
standards have existed in the industry for evaluating the performance of bureaus, the
International Association of Convention and Visitors Bureaus (IACVB) has led a multi-
year program to establish industry standards. The IACVB Board has just approved a set
of standards in October of 2003. As described in the body of the report, these can be
used to evaluate the performance of the GMCVB over time in their own market, and
against their own goals. Eventually, industry standardization may allow for some
comparison between bureaus, although there are many additional factors that complicate
cross-burean comparisons.
Optimal Model for Marketing Leisure/Tourism. Absent any existing structure, the
optimal model for the greater Miami area would be to have the individual communities of
interest (e.g., separate municipalities, hotels and other commercial interests) band
together to provide a regional marketing organization to attract leisure travelers into the
area. Once tourists have been brought to the area, individual cities and commercial
interests would then market to increase their own capture of tourists. In concept, the
GMCVB in the greater Miami area is consistent with the optimal model.
Optimal Model for Marketing Conventions. In today's highly competitive market, a
national scale convention business requires a cohesive package that includes: large and
high-quality meeting and exhibition facilities; one or more headquarters hotels; additional
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB Analysis of Issues
ERA Project No. 14932 Page V-27
hotels with a willingness to "block" rooms; a major airport; smooth ground transportation
between airport, hotels and the convention center; interesting offsite event venues; and
casual dining and entertainment opportunities. The greater Miami convention package is
spread among multiple political jurisdictions. Absent any existing structure, the optimal
model for the greater Miami area would be to have the individual communities band
together to provide a regional marketing organization to attract convention travelers into
the area. Once a major convention has selected the area, individual hotels and their host
communities would promote their features to increase their own capture of
conventioneers. In concept, the GMCVB in the greater Miami area is consistent with the
optimal model.
Advertising as a Model for Marketing Tourism. Advertising is one of the functions
employed by a full service Bureau when marketing for both leisure and convention
visitors, and is generally provided by recruitment and retention of a separate advertising
firm. It has been suggested that the City solicit and directly retain an advertising firm to
promote Miami Beach. Advertising is only one of many required marketing functions,
however, and a contract with an advertising firm would have to be augmented by
substantial investment by the City in other outside vendors or in-house capabilities to
provide such services as: provide business leads to lodging properties; coordinate the
local business community to prepare bids/proposals for multi-property meetings and
events; conduct meeting planner site inspections for prospective groups; staff a visitor
information center; conduct familiarization tours; create special interest niche
promotions; synergistically coordinate marketing efforts with those of other industry
elements within the region; conduct long range strategic planning; promote the tourism
industry to the host community through education and special outreach programs; and a
wide variety of other critical functions. The consultants do not recommend using an RFP
process to hire an advertising firm, because such a firm would not be able to perform the
full range of services needed. The optimal model is to form a public-private partnership
of regional scope to perform these functions, including the use of an advertising firm. In
concept, the GMCVB in the greater Miami area is consistent with the optimal model.
Comparison of the GMCVB with Other Major Bureaus. Having determined the
GMCVB structure represents an optimal model for marketing the Greater Miami area
conceptually; the next area of investigation is whether it performs optimally in practice.
The ERA/TDA consultant team conducted a benchmarking analysis comparing the
GMCVB with national averages for bureaus of its size, and against seven specific peer
bureaus. The findings are that the GMCVB is within the norm for major bureaus in terms
of: its organizational structure, its accounting practices, its use of satellite offices, size of
membership, and most other routine practices and organization characteristics. The
GMCVB runs with a smaller than average staff, in pementage terms spending less than
the average on payroll, and more than the average on direct promotion. With 72
members, the GMCVB board of directors is more than double the average size for major
bureaus, and with 22 members the Executive Committee is also more than double the
average size of 9. In a diverse regional setting representing multiple destinations and
governmental parmers, an argument can be made for maintaining a large board. On the
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB Analysis of Issues
ERA Project No. 14932 Page V-28
other hand, decision-making in a large board must be delegated to smaller committees
and subcommittees making it more difficult for any one member to feel heard.
Appropriate Use of the CDT. In addition to the resort tax, ovemight visitors to Miami
Beach also pay a Convention Development Tax (CDT) of three percent of hotel room
costs. This tax has been generating $25 to $30 million per year countywide, of which
overnight guests in Miami Beach have been contributing one-third to one-half of the
total. To maximize region-wide economic benefits of the investment, CDT revenues
should be used to fund ongoing upgrades and improvements to convention facilities that
attract additional convention business, and should not be spent on sports, A/e_r_f0_nn_i~n~g_a_r~ts~
museums, or other facilities that serve primarily residents. It would be in the best interest
of the City of Miami Beach if a portion of these funds were used to make improvements
to the Miami Beach Convention Center. Needs have already been identified for a new
50,000 square foot multi-purpose general assembly/banquet hall ' ,
addit~ona! ~.a.:. ...... /.~..~ ..... ~ ~.~ .... ~ ot~,~ c~:~:+:~o to enhance the existing
center.
Overall Adequacy of Tourism Generated Tax Revenues. The resort and hotel taxes
~.~X¢--b~e-e-n-g~-n-e.ratin-g-be-t-w-ee--~n~-$~2-~--a-ng-$~5_.m.i-~i.~n--f~r th__e_(_~.i_~_o~_M_ia_~i
years. Additional revenues are generated through the ad valorem tax, parking ~es and
tines, and other miscellaneous sources. If fiscal analysis finds that the costs of serving
tourism and convention business are greater than the revenues generated by visitors, then
increases in taxes paid by visitom may be appropriate. If the fiscal benefits of the visitor
industry are found to outweigh the costs, then priohties should be set among providing
General Fund services to visitors, and developing and promoting the industry at the
regional (Bureau) and City levels.
Funding Mechanism. A consistent and assured funding mechanism would improve
performance of the existing working structure between the City and the Bureau, and
reduce a source of historical contention. Historically, the City's financial participation in
the Bureau has been negotiated every two years. This protracted program identification
and negotiation process is not the most effective use of staff time or that of the business
people in the industry who have participated in the process. The optimal structure would
involve a formula-based contribution coupled with a long-term agreement, providing
greater consistency of funding, yet still fluctuating with macro-economic industry
performance. The City would fund additional direct marketing initiatives, and address
local needs from visitor-generated revenues.
Role of the City in the Tourism Industry. Rather than expect the Bureau to undertake
specific initiatives that apply primarily to Miami Beach, the City should conduct its own
blue ribbon community planning process to identify and prioritize programs that should
remain under the full control of the City. These could logically include:
Product development (e.g., new cultural and heritage attractions);
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB Analysis of Issues
ERA Project No. 14932 Page V-29
· Community education, hospitality training, and visitor welcome services;
· Local planning and promotion; and
· Ongoing maintenance of the tourism infrastructure through the full range of
General Fund expenditures.
These City activities should be directed by the same senior staffperson that represents the
City to the Bureau in order to maintain the tightest coordination in convention and
tourism development efforts and to maximize the synergy of both entities working in
concert.
In summary, the City should continue to participate in the funding of the GMCVB and
participate fully in its effort to market the region to the world at large. At the same time
the City should establish a tourism development division within the City. Funding for
both of these tourism development functions and funding for the general fund costs of
serving visitors should come from the taxes levied on visitors. A shared vision,
developed through a strategic planning process, is needed to coordinate the efforts of the
Bureau and the City, and help the City allocate their resources among these three
expenses. Structural changes within the Bureau are recommended to enhance future
communication between the two entities, and parallel structural changes within the City
are already being implemented. Recurring negotiations over funding should be replaced
with a longer term and automatic funding formula.
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB Analysis of Issues
ERA Project No. 14932 Page V-30
APPENDIX A: WHY MIAMI BEACH SHOULD PROMOTE
THE BUSINESS OF TOURISM
Perhaps the most general issue of all is why a community should seek to promote a
tourism industry in the first place. While this may be obvious to tourism industry
professionals, it may not be so obvious to the typical resident of the host community.
This Appendix was prepared to serve as a primer for those unfamiliar with the industry.
Why do destinations compete for visitors?
Because tourism is economic development. Visitors bring money into a community from
outside its borders, generating revenue for local businesses, providing jobs, generating
taxes for governments and contributing to the economic vitality of the area. Historically,
tourism often was seen as a service business, and the service industry sector was seen as
one that simply recycled local dollars. With a more in-depth economic analysis, policy-
makers have come to understand that it is more equivalent to the highly valued
manufacturing base sought by many communities because it brings in new dollars to the
community from non-residents. And once in the local economy, those dollars are indeed
recycled to further expand the economic benefits to local residents (through what is
known as the "multiplier effect.")
What is the tourism industry?
The tourism/travel industry includes the following:
Lodging - Hotels, motels, bed & breakfasts, inns, and ownership or rental of
vacation/rental homes/condos.
· Food Service - Restaurants and other eating/drinking establishments.
· Entertainment/Recreation - Golf, museums, movie theaters, attractions, etc.
· Retail - Gifts, clothes, souvenirs and other retail pumhases.
· Auto Transportation - Privately owned cars, gasoline service stations, and car
rental.
· Public Transportation - Air, intercity bus, rail, boat, ship and taxi/limousine.
· Cruise Ships -- Provisioning ships and accommodating passengers before and
after cruise experiences.
Why do communities, states and countries choose to make tourism part of their economic
development strategy?
They do so because tourism can generate money more quickly than building a
manufacturing plant and often with minimal adverse environmental impact. In doing so,
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB Appendix A: Why Promote Tourism
ERA Project No. 14932 Page A-I
communities have the opportunities and resources to preserve local culture and heritage
and feel the pride in sharing it with others. Promoting a positive destination image is
generally translated into increased retail activity, business attraction/retention, resident
attraction/retention and support for property values. Services, such as restaurants and
attractions, supported by the volume of visitor dollars are also available to residents
adding to the quality of life in a community. In addition, tourism is a major job provider
with over seven million jobs in the United States being tourism related.
Is tourism an economic cure-all?
No. There are costs associated with it. Visitors need a place to park, they need places to
eat and sleep and they need information on things to see and do. It requires time and
money to attract them to a community and to provide services to them while they are
visiting. Visitors, like residents, also require police and fire protection, streetlights and
sewers. They do not however put children in schools, require social services or need
band uniforms. Most visitor needs are resident benefits and the revenue communities
receive from visitors more than offsets the costs associated with visitor needs. Thus,
residents benefit fmancially and culturally from hosting visitors.
How exactly does tourism produce dollars for a community?
Tourism is a business that a community develops and promotes for its own benefit, both
financial and cultural. Tourism creates dollars and jobs by bringing people from outside
the area, who spend money. People who stay overnight in hotels/motels and resorts
spend approximately two to three times what a day visitor spends, thus a clear economic
goal is to "put heads in beds." The more nights they stay, the more money they spend.
Although a lower overall per day spender, the daytrip visitor can have an important
impact on a community by attending a cultural event, festival, dining and shopping.
Benefits to local businesses and cultural heritage attractions are clear, but additionally,
municipalities reap the rewards of increased local taxes, i.e. sales tax and hotel/resort tax;
healthier local businesses and improved real estate paying property taxes; increased
awareness and positive image of the community promoted outside the area with property
values that reflect this positive image; and increased community pride by residents in
their community.
Tourism has been used successfully as a vehicle to promote economic diversity in many
urban, suburban and rural communities. Tourism should be considered as part of an
overall economic development plan and its importance in that plan will vary depending
on the community. Tourism may provide a basis upon which communities can develop,
strengthen and renew community pride in their heritage and their area's quality of life.
Direct visitor expenditures are spread over a wide range of businesses - from lodging,
restaurants and gas stations to grocery stores, gift shops and cultural attractions. Indirect
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB Appendix A: Why Promote Tourism
ERA Project No. 14932 Page A-2
visitor spending occurs with the construction of new hotels and restaurants. These new
businesses require local bank £mancing, the services of floral and landscaping companies
for centerpieces and shrubs for decorative gardens. Printing companies provide menus,
place mats and brochures for the hospitality industry. Tourism creates a strong and
prosperous environment for both businesses and residents.
Recommendations
Some entity must be authorized to market on behalf of the City of Miami Beach to attract
both tourists and convention center users. Because of the enormous benefits, this
marketing activity is a worthy use of public funds, which are generated by the visitors
themselves.
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB Appendix A: Why Promote Tourism
ERA Project No. 14932 Page A-3
APPENDIX B: INDUSTRY STANDARD DEFINITIONS TO
BE USED IN BUREAU PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT
The following definitions have been adopted by the IACVB in October of 2003 to be
used in their system for developing performance measures for bureaus. This Appendix
expands upon the discussion of bureau performance measurement in Section V in the
main body of the report.
Convention Industry Definitions
APEX Definitionf
As part of other Performance Measurement Team (PMT) projects, IACVB defined a
number of convention industry-related terms, which have since been adopted by APEX.
IACVB, in mm, has incorporated other APEX definitions into its efforts. The related
terms are defined below.
Convention: An event where the primary activity of the attendees is to attend educational
sessions, participate in meetings/discussions, socialize, or attend other organized events.
There is a secondary exhibit component.
Meeting: An event where the primary activity of the attendees is to attend educational
sessions, participate in meetings/discussions, socialize, or attend organized events. There
is no exhibit component to this event.
Trade Show/Exhibition: An event where the primary activity of the attendees is to visit
exhibits on the show floor. These events focus primarily on business to business (B2B)
relationships.
Site Inspection: Personal, careful investigation of a property, facility, or area.
CiWwide event: An event that requires the use of a convention center or event complex
and multiple hotels in the host city.
Attendees: A combination of delegates, exhibitors, media, speakers, and
guests/companions who attend an event.
Delegates: Individuals who attend an event to primarily visit the exhibits or attend
meetings and/or conference sessions. This excludes exhibitors, media, speakers, and
companions.
~ 1The mission &APEX (Accepted Practices Exchange), an initiative of the Convention Industry Council,
is to bring together all stakeholders in the development and implementation of industry-wide accepted
practices which create and enhance efficiencies throughout the meeting, convention, and exhibition
industry.
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB Appendix B: Industry Definitions for Performance Measurement
ERA Project No. 14932 Page B-1
Exhibitors: Those who attend an event to staffan exhibit.
Additional Convention Industry Definitions
Direct Spending: All expenditures associated with an event that flow into the host
destination's local economy. Direct spending includes attendee spending, exhibitor
spending and event organizer spending. Note: IACVB's ExPact study (to be released in
2004) will standardize and systemize direct spending calculations for events.
Total Economic Impact: Events generate secondary spending (indirect and induced) on
the host destination's local economy over and above the original direct spending. These
secondary impacts, when combined with the original direct spending, result in the total
economic impact of an event. Indirect spending is spending by the host destination's
travel industry businesses on goods and services from local suppliers on behalf of the
specific event. Induced spending occurs when employees in the host destination's travel
industry and its suppliers spend their wages in the local economy. This chain of buying
and selling among businesses and employees continues until the original direct spending
"leaks out" of the local economy. The economic multiplier is calculated as total economic
impact divided by direct spending. (Source: Travel Industry Association of America)
M CVB Convention Sales Definitions (recommended)
IACVB recommends CVBs adopt the following definitions governing the convention
sales process:
1)
Lead:
When an event inquiry by a corporation/association/organization/independent
meeting planner that includes a request for a minimum of 10 sleeping rooms over a
specific set/range of dates is forwarded by the CVB sales staff ONLY to those hotels
that meet the meeting planner's event criteria. A lead is more formalized than just
exchanging/forwarding business cards to hotels.
Note: For convention center events, if the CVB sends a lead first to the
convention center for date availability and then to the hotel(s) for room blocks as
a matter of policy, this process should be counted as ONE lead for reporting
purposes.
Note: Lead is both a status level AND the actual physical inquiry sent to the
hotel(s)/convention center.
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB Appendix B: Industry Definitions for Performance Measurement
ERA Project No. 14932 Page B-2
2)
Bid
Proposal submitted by the CVB and/or hotel(s) to a planner that includes defined
dates and room blocks. Note: A bid is an activity, not a productivity measure.
3) Tentative
Status assigned to a group/event after the bid has been submitted to the meeting
planner and the destination is waiting for a decision. Note: The tentative status is only
a trackable measure, not a productivity measure.
4) Booking
a)
b)
Hotel Event: A future event contracted in writing by the event organization with
the hotel. The CVB should receive a copy of the contract OR a written
communication from an authorized agent of the hotel that a contract has been
signed. The communication should detail dates, space requirements and estimated
room block. The CVB should track estimated attendance and attendee spending
for the event.
Citywide/Convention Center Event: Given the long-time frame often involved in
booking a citywide/convention center event, the booking process generally takes
two steps:
i) Confirmed booking - A future event confirmed in writing (letter, booking
notice) signed by an authorized agent of the event organization and the
convention center (if applicable). The communication should detail dates,
space requirements and estimated room block. The CVB should track
estimated attendance and attendee spending.
ii) Contracted booking - A future event contracted in writing by the event
organization with the event facility (e.g., convention center). The CVB should
receive communication of this stage in writing from an authorized agent of the
convention center.
5) Lost Opportunity
A potential event in the lead or tentative stage that was subsequently lost by the
destination. This does NOT include venue changes within the destination. The CVB
should track the number of estimated room nights, attendance and attendee spending
and the reason associated with the lost opportunity.
6) Cancelled Business
An event that was booked for the destination (a contracted booking for a
citywide/convention center event) that subsequently did not take place, either because
the event itself was cancelled or left the destination before taking place. The CVB
should track the estimated number of room nights, attendance and attendee spending
and the reason associated with the cancellation.
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB Appendix B: Industry Definitions for Performance Measurement
ERA Project No. 14932 Page B-3
Date Name
Appendix C
LOG OF INITIAL MIAMI AREA INTERVIEWS CONDUCTED BY
ECONOMICS RESEARCH ASSOCIATES AND
TOURISM DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES
Sorted by Last Name
7-Feb Abbaticchio, Jeff
3-Feb Aedo, Rolando L.
6-Feb Aller, Michael
3-Feb Anderson, Jr., William N.
11-Mar Ava Derandi
5-Feb Blumberg, Stuart L.
6-Feb Bower, Matti Herrem
17-Mar Bruno Barreiro
4-Mar Buchanan, John
4-Feb Crowder, Kevin
6-Feb Cuervo, Christina M.
27-Feb David Kelsey
4-Feb Dermer, David
7-Feb Elsie Howard
6-Feb Garcia, Jr., Luis R.
7-Feb Goldman, Tony
7-Feb Gonzalez, Jorge M.
7-Feb Hart, Wendy
6-Feb Jackson, Cathy
25-Feb Jim Bode
6-Feb Johnson, Bill
8-Apr Kasdan, Neisen
7-Feb Lefion, Donald
5-Feb Levin, Sidney
6-Mar Manny Diaz
Title Organization
Director Public Relations
Vice President, Marketing &
Tourism
Tourism & Convention
Director and Chief of Protocol
Director, Planning & Research
President & CEO
Commissioner
County Commissioner
Journalist/Resident
Director Economic
Development Division
Assistant City Manager
Mayor
Chairperson
Commissioner
Chairman
City Manager
Vice President of Development
Director
Assistant County
Manager/Transportation
Manager
Former Mayor
Vice Chairman
Vice President
Corporate/External Affairs
In Person/
Telephone
Loews Miami Beach In-Person
Greater Miami Convention & In-Person
Visitors Bureau
City of Miami Beach In-Person
Greater Miami Convention &
Visitors Bureau
Ritz Plaza Hotel
Greater Miami & The Beaches
Hotel Association
City of Miami Beach
Miami-Date County
Various travel publications
City of Miami Beach
City of Miami Beach
S. Beach Hotel & Rest Assoc.
City of Miami Beach
Miami Beach Visitor and
Convention Authority
Cityof Miami Beach
Greater Miami Convention &
Visitors Bureau
City of Miami Beach
Island Outpost
Miami-Dade County Audit &
Management Svcs. Dept.
Roney Palace
Office of the County Manager,
Miami-Dade County
City of Miami Beach
Continental Hospitality
Holdings, Inc.
Florida Power and Light
Gumerick Development
In-Person
Telephone
In-Person
In-Person
Telephone
Telephone
In-Person
In-Person
Telephone
In-Person
In-Person
In-Person
Telephone
In-Person
In-Person
In-Person
Telephone
In-Person
Telephone
Telephone
Telephone
Telephone
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB Appendix C
ERA Project No. 14932 Page C-I
7-Feb Marcos, Grisette
26-Feb Melanie Muss
6-Feb Milberg, Michael
3-Feb Moriarity, Ira
S-Feb Muss, Steven
16-Mar Norman Litz
5-Feb Polansky, Linda
4-Mar Rafael Suarez-Rivas
4-Mar Roberto Datorre
6-Feb Shaw, Donna
7-Feb Singer, Bruce
4-Feb Smith, Jose
6-Feb Steinberg, Richard
6-Feb Talbert, III, William D.
4-Feb Tober, Doug
7-Feb Velazquez, Jr., Orlando
7-Feb Walker, Patricia D.
14-Feb West, Alvin
5-Feb Whitaker, David Sr.
14-Feb Yarzabal, Joe
Executive Director
Chairman
Senior Vice President,
Convention Sales
Owner
Director of Facilities
General Manager
Assistant City Attorney
Executive Director
Culture and Tourism
Development Director
President
Commissioner
Commissioner
President & CEO
General Manager
General Manager
Chief Financial Officer
Senior Vice President, Finance
and Administration
Vice President
Vice President of Accounting
Miami Beach Visitor and
Convention Authority
Fountainbleau Hotel
Miami Beach Chamber of
Commerce
Greater Miami Convention &
Visitors Bureau
Fountainbleau Hilton
New World Symphony
The Clay Hotel
City of Miami
Miami Beach CDC
City of Miami Beach
Miami Beach Chamber of
Commerce
City of Miami Beach
City of Miami Beach
Greater Miami Convention &
Visitors Bureau
Miami Beach Convention
Center, Jackie Gleason Theater
Holiday Inn South Beach Resort
City of Miami Beach
Greater Miami Convention &
Visitors Bureau
Greater Miami Convention &
Greater Miami Convention &
Visitors Bureau
In-Person
Telephone
Telephone
In-Person
Telephone
Telephone
In-Person
Telephone
Telephone
In-Person
Telephone
In-Person
In-Person
In-Person
In-Person
In-Person
In-Person
Telephone
In-Person
Telephone
GROUP INTERVIEWS AND OTHER SIGNIFICANT MEETINGS
Date Description of Group
3 -Feb
4-Feb
4-Feb
5 -Feb
7-Feb
23-Jun
Study Steering Committee appointed by the City of Miami Beach
Tuesday Morning Breakfast Club - Puerto Sagua
Miami Beach Chamber of Commerce, Board of Governors Meeting
Commission Meeting, City of Miami Beach
VCA Luncheon
Study Steering Committee appointed by the City of Miami Beach
In Person/
Telephone
In-Person
In-Person
In-Person
In-Person
In-Person
Telephone
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB Appendix C
ERA Project No. 14932 Page C-2
APPENDIX D: BIBLIOGRAPHY
"1028 -Tourism and Convention Director." Job Description
"1031 - Cultural Affairs & Tourism Development Director." Job Description
"Agreement between the City of Miami Beach and The Greater Miami Convention and
Visitors Bureau." 7 Jul 1999
"Amendment One to Interlocal Cooperation Agreement. Dated June 21, 1996. Between
Miami-Dade County and The City of Miami Beach." 24 Apr 2001
"City of Miami Beach Notice of and Agreement for Renewal of Agreement Between City
of Miami Beach and the Greater Miami Convention and Visitors Bureau." 22
May 2002
Aguila, Raul J., First Assistant City Attorney. Letter toWilliam D. Talbert, III. plus
attachments. Dated: September 15, 1999
Blumberg, Smart L. Letter to Mayor David Dermer & City Commissioners, City of
Miami Beach. Dated: March 4, 2002
Carleton, Roger M. Commission Memorandum No. 440-73 to Mayor Seymour Gelber
and Members of the City Commission, City of Miami Beach. Dated: July 28,
1993
City of Miami Beach, Economic Development Department. "Miami Beach Market
Study." July 2002
City of Miami Beach, Economic Development Department. "Miami Beach Market
Study. Data Supplement." May, 2002
City of Miami Beach, Economic Development Division. "City of Miami Beach. A
Miami Beach Guide for Your Busniess." une, 2002
City of Miami Beach, Florida. "Resort Tax.. Revenues. Expenditures. Budgets." 2002
City of Miami Beach. "City of Miami Beach - Special City Commission Meeting."
[Onlline] May 22, 2002
City of Miami Beach. "Mayor's Blue Ribbon Task Force on Tourism Report." 4 Mar
2002
City of Miami Beach. "Mayor's Blue Ribbon Task Force on Tourism Report.
Appendix." 4 March 2002
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB Bibliography
ERA Project No. 14932 Page D-1
City of Miami Beach. "Mayor's Blue Ribbon Task Force on Tourism. Presentation to
City Commission." 5 April 2002
City of Miami Beach. City of Miami Beach Notice of and Agreementn for Renewal of
Agreement Between the City of Miami Beach and The Greater Miami Convention
and Visitors Bureau. (17 Sep 2002)
City of Miami Beach. Fiscal 2003 Budget Projections." 3 July 2002
City of Miami Beach. Target Market Initiatives/Redeployment List
City of Miami Beach. Target Market Initiatives/Redeployment Tables. 30 Aug 2003
Conventions, Sports & Leisure International. "Analysis of the Potential Expansion of
Convention Facilities in Greater Miami and the Beaches. Executive Summary."
5 November 2001
Conventions, Sports & Leisure International. "Analysis of the Potential Expansion of
Convention Facilities in Greater Miami and the Beaches." 5 November 2001
Exhibit C to City of Miami Beach Notice of and Agreementn for Renewal of Agreement
Between the City of Miami Beach and The Greater Miami Convention and
Visitors Bureau. (17 Sep 2002)
Gonzalez, Jorge M., City Manager, City of Miami Beach. "Convention Center Study."
Letter to Mayor David Dermer and Members of the City Commission. Letter of
Commission No. 39-2002. 13 Feb 2002
Gonzalez, Jorge M., City Manager, City of Miami Beach. Memo to Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Commission. Dated: March 20, 2002
Greater Miami & The Beaches Hotel Association. "2001-2002 Annual Report."
Greater Miami Convention & Visitors Bureau. "2001/2002 Tourism Sales Program."
Greater Miami Convention & Visitors Bureau. "2002/2003 Tourism Sales Program."
Greater Miami Convention & Visitors Bureau. "Fiscal Year 2002/2003 Budget and
Program of Work."
Greater Miami Convention & Visitors Bureau. Marketing & Tourism Department
Organizational Chart. 1 Apr 2002
Greater Miami Convention & Visitors Bureau. Organizational Chart. 30 Jan 2001
Greater Miami Convention and Visitors Bureau, 2002-2003, Executive Committee List
and 2002-2003 Board of Directors List
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB Bibliography
ERA Project No. 14932 Page D-2
Interlocal Agreement Between Dade County, City of Miami Beach, The City of Miami
and the Village of Bal Harbour, and Greater Miami Convention and Visitors
Bureau. 30 Sep 1993
International Association of Convention & Visitor Bureaus Foundation. "2001 CVB
Organizational & Financial Profile Report." Dated: 2001.
"Mayor's Blue Ribbon Task Force on Tourism Report." 4 Mar 2002
Miami Beach Convention Center, Jackie Gleason Theater of the Performing Arts,
Management Services Agreement by and Between The City of Miami Beach,
Florida, and SMG, a General Parmership.
Miami Beach Convention Center, Miami Beach, Florida Booking Policies
Miami Beach Convention Center. Calendar of Events. January 2003-January 2005.
Public
SMG. "Comparative Trends. Miami Beach Convention Center." 30 October 02
South Beach Hotel and Restaurant Association. "Special Report. Collection and Use of
Miami Beach Resort Taxes. FY 2000/2001
Strategy Research Corporation. "Visitor Profile and Tourism Impact Study. Overnight
Visitors to Greater Miami and the Beaches. Special Tabulation: Stayed in Miami
Beach. Annual 2001. Printout."
Strategy Research Corporation. "Visitor Profile and Tourism Impact. Greater Miami and
the Beaches. 2001 Annual Report. For Greater Miami Convention & Visitors
Bureau.
Strategy Research Corporation. "Visitor Profile and Tourism Impact Study." 2001
Profile of Visitors to Greater Miami and The Beaches.
Talbert, III, William D. "Highlights of Attached Visitor Profile, Occupancy/Room Rate
Analysis and Gross Resort Tax Collections. Memo to Stuart Blumberg, Chair,
Mayor's Blue Ribbon Committee. 7 Jan 2002
The Greater Miami Convention & Visitors Bureau. "The Partnership Between The City
of Miami Beach and The Greater Miami Convention & Visitors Bureau."
The Jackie Gleason Theater Booking Policy
Structural Assessment of the GMCVB Bibliography
ERA Project No. 14932 Page D-3