Category: Reference

OVERVIEW: Branson, Missouri is situated in Southwest Missouri, 35 miles south of Springfield, and is ranked 25th among all overnight leisure vacation destinations in the country.

2009 TOURISM IMPACT:

*An estimated 7.8 million visitors in 2009
*Tourism is the Branson/Lakes Area’s chief industry, with an estimated $3.0 billion in tourism-related spending in Taney and Stone counties in 2009

2009 VISITOR INFORMATION:

* 38.5% of visitors were families
* 61.5% of visitors were adults
* 90.1% travelled to Branson via personal vehicle
* 6.9% travelled to Branson by air
* 4.3% travelled to Branson via RV/Camper
* 6.6% were groups
* Average adult age was 57 years
* Average length of stay was 4.54 nights
* Average party size was 4.06 persons
* Average amount spent per party was $961 per trip
* 14.4% of visitors came from 100 miles or less
* 25.7% of visitors came from 101-300 miles away
* 26.3% of visitors came from 301-650 miles away
* 33.5% of visitors came from 650+ miles away
* On a 1 to 5 rating scale, visitor satisfaction measured 4.51

ACTIVITIES:
* 85.5% – Shopping
* 85.1% – Shows
* 53.7% – Lake/Outdoor Activities
* 31.3% – Museums
* 26.6% – Theme Parks
* 4.1% – Fishing
* 3.8% – Golf

THEATERS/SHOWS: The Branson/Lakes Area offers 50 theaters and more than 100 shows with 64,057 seats (more than Broadway). Audiences can see shows throughout the day – breakfast shows, matinees and evening performances. Country, pop, swing, rock n" roll, gospel, classical and Broadway-style music and productions join comedy, acrobatics and magic shows to provide visitors a wide array of entertainment choices.

LAKES: Table Rock, Taneycomo and Bull Shoals — 3 pristine lakes with 1,200 miles of shoreline offering fishing, boating, parasailing, jet skiing and swimming. While the lakes all offer great fishing, each has its specialty. Table Rock Lake offers world-class bass fishing; Lake Taneycomo with its cold waters offers superb trout fishing; and Bull Shoals Lake is a warm water angler’s paradise, especially for tournament bass fishing.

LODGING: 208 facilities with 22,000 rooms

RV/CAMPGROUNDS: 26 parks with 2,870 sites

RESTAURANTS: 242 restaurants with 37,048 seats

GOLF COURSES: 12 courses (7 Championship)

SHOPPING: 300+ shops — Branson is home to three outlet shopping malls with more than 200 retailers. Visitors can find contemporary clothing, gift items, housewares, designer shoes, luggage and other treasures at reduced prices throughout the year at Tanger Outlets, Branson Meadows, or Factory Merchants. Historic Downtown Branson is also a shopper and diner’s delight — Dick’s Old-Fashioned 5 & 10, countless boutiques and specialty stores combined with quaint eateries make the downtown area truly special. The new Branson Landing’s 100+ retail shops and lakefront dining establishments are just minutes away.

DEMOGRAPHICS:
* 7,435 – Branson Population
* 75,152 – Taney and Stone County Population
* 19 square miles – Branson’s incorporated area
* $468,546,090 – Total assessed Branson property values

This information is published on this site through the courtesy was compiled by the Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce & CVB under the auspices and funding of Branson/Lakes Area Tourism Community Enhancement District (TCED)

The information was compiled by the Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce and CVB under the auspices and funding of the Branson/Lakes Area Tourism Community Enhancement District and is sponsored on this site, as part of its continuing commitment to serving Branson area tourism and the community, by the Branson Tourism Center (BTC). BTC is one of Branson’s largest and most respected vacation planning services and sellers of Branson show tickets, attraction tickets and lodging accommodations. BTC can be reached by either calling their toll free number 1-800-785-1550 or through their website www.BransonTourismCenter.com.

City of Branson’s Municipal Code Sign Ordinances applicable to alleged arbitrary and selective enforcement of Branson’s Sign Ordinance by its Planning and Development discussed in following related places:

1. Twitter Posts: #BransonSign
2. That portion of the opinion piece posted to www.theoleseagull.com (07/29/09) entitled. “Signs shouldn’t be a gamble.”
3. Opinion piece posted to www.theoleseagull.com (08/23/09) entitled: “A ‘Sign’ that Branson Planning & Development ‘doesn’t deserve the benefit of the doubt?‘” (08/23/09)

EXCERTPTED PROVISIONS FROM BRANSON MUNICIPAL CODE

Section 70-2 entitled “Definitions” (only the definition of “Logo.”

“Logo means an identification badge, design or device, graphically representing a business operation.”

Subsection 70-10(10) entitled, “Private traffic entrance and directional signs.”

“Signs directing traffic movement onto premises or within premises, not exceeding six square feet in area for each sign, shall be allowed. Advertising logos are allowed, but are limited to no more than 25 percent of the total sign area of each sign. One entrance sign and one exit sign shall be allowed for each public street entrance. Each sign shall be a maximum of three feet in height to the top of the sign, and each sign shall be a maximum of three feet in width. Horizontal signs on and flush with paved areas are exempt from these standards.”

Currently the City of Branson has stated that it believes that it has a Trade Mark and Service Mark on the term “Branson, Missouri” and is currently using that theory to say it has the federally registered right to the term “Branson.” Even as we speak the City of Branson is engaging in activities to try, in my opinion, to get businesses outside of the City Limits of Branson having the name Branson in them to delete all references to “Branson.” The first example of this activity is a Sep. 15 letter sent to the Branson Sports Club that among other things said:

“The City of Branson, Missouri owns the federally registered service mark BRANSON, MISSOURI (and design) Reg. No. 2,594,679”

and further stated:

“This letter is being sent to you to protest your unauthorized use “Branson” in connection with a business not located within the city limits of Branson, Missouri. This type of deceptive trade practice constitutes trademark infringement under Section 32(1) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C 1114(1); false designation of geographic origin under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a); and violates state trademark statutes and common law principle of unfair competition and misappropriation.”

The letter went on to demand: “Within 10 days of the date of this correspondence, we expect to receive from you a written undertaking that you will formally change the name of your business to delete all references to “Branson.” Alternatively, if you would consent to annexation into the City of Branson when the City is ready to take you in, then we would not prohibit the use of “Branson” in your name.”

On Oct 3, at 5:59 a.m., I sent an email to Mr. Dody as per his request, made in front of the Branson Board of Aldermen at their their Apr. 10 meeting to “ask before I write.” To date all I have received from him is Mr. Link’s letter of Oct. 6, 2006. (HANDOUT copy to each County Commissioner)

In that email I specifically asked for a “Yes” or “No” answer to the following questions:

1. The City of Branson does NOT have a registered Service Mark for the term “Branson" or "BRANSON?" I asked that question because I had been unable to find such a registration. To date I have not received an answer to that question but, based on my research the probable answer would be “Yes, it does NOT have a registered Service Mark for the term “Branson.”

2. The City of Branson does have a registered Service Mark for the “BRANSON, MISSOURI?". I asked this question to see if had anything different from the Service Mark they have registered under the Registration Number 2,594,679. Based on my research the answer would be “No” for the following reasons:

(HANDOUT to each County Commissioner) – The handout that I have just given you is a printout of what the Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS) for the US Patent and Trade Mark Office shows for the Service Mark covered under that Registration Number.

1. The Service Mark that the City of Branson has registered is the mark pictured to the left and described under “Mark Drawing Code,” Design Search Code, and the “Description of the Mark” portions of the handout. You will note that the Description of the Mark Reads: “ “The mark consists of a circle enclosing a phrase of musical notes, the words "Branson Missouri" with a star in the "o" in Branson, and a design of a mountain range with a river running through it. The stippling is for shading purposes.”

Even more importantly, look immediately above the “Description of the Mark” to the section of the form entitled, “Disclaimer.” It reads in huge capital letters “NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE "BRANSON MISSOURI" APART FROM THE MARK AS SHOWN.” The governing words are “APART FROM THE MARK AS SHOWN.”

(HANDOUT to each County Commissioner) – The Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS) for the US Patent and Trade Mark Office for the Service Mark(s) “Branson Landing.” Go Down to the DISCLAIMER portion of the form. Now here is a registration made two years after the one they base their claim on and what is the very term they DISCLAIM? “Branson” the very term they are now trying to claim.

What the city has is Service Mark pictured and described in the printout that you see. No more and no less.

In my opinion to then turn around and cite that Service Mark and its registration as the authority for the demands and accusations made in the city’s letter to the Branson Sport Club Inc. on Sep. 15, 2006 is unconscionable.

Unfortunately for Taney County businesses this is an attack by the City of Branson on them as most of them are outside the city. It not reasonable for individual small businesses to have to fight the coordinated power and might of the City of Branson as it asserts claims it might not have. I would request that Taney County take whatever action it deems necessary to protect Taney County businesses from this unreasonable and unwarranted interference and conduct an investigation into the actions of the City of Branson to see whether or not its actions violate any criminal statutes relative to but not restricted to, extortion, intimidation, or coercion.

Comments of Gary J. Groman, a.k.a. The Ole Seagull made during the Public Comment portion of the Apr. 10, 2006 meeting of the Branson Board of Aldermen

The following is the first paragraph from a letter that your City Administrator, Terry Dody, sent to Mr. Edd Akers, President, of the Branson Lakes Area Tourism Enhancement District on January 30, 2006.

“Dear Edd,

Before (I repeat) BEFORE, the enhancement tax was voted on, the Wal-Mart Corporation requested changes in the Branson Hills project site plan. The ability of the developer to make those extensive and expensive changes and keep Wal-Mart as a Branson Hills tenant was based on the potential revenues from the proposed enhancement tax- if it passed. Had the tourism tax not succeeded, it is extremely unlikely that the developer could have modified the original development plan to meet Wal-Marts’s requirements.”

This strongly indicates to me that at the very time voters were being led to believe that if they voted for the retail marketing tax it would be used strictly for marketing, that the City of Branson was planning on diverting millions of that tax to pay off TIF indebtedness in Branson Landing and Branson Hills. Even worse, it appears that the city was actually negotiating with Wal-Mart and the developers to specifically use the proceeds of that tax to do something that they would not have been able to do without voter approval of the tax for another purpose.

A lie can be either by commission or omission and deceitful acts can be either overt or covert. I wouldn’t expect much different from developers, big box stores of the Gal-Mart type or the person who wrote that letter but I would expect different from you. My prayer is that none of you were involved in the perpetration of this apparent deceit upon the voters. My further prayer is that you will take whatever action is necessary to insure that the proceeds of the Tourism Enhancement District retail tax that the voters approved in Nov. of 2005, AFTER both the Branson Hills and Branson Landing TIF Plans had been approved, goes 100 percent toward the marketing of Branson and not to pay off TIFs in Branson Landing and Branson Hills.

Thank you.”

Reply of Branson City Administrator Terry Dody to Comments of the Gary J. Groman, a.k.a. The Ole Seagull, made during the Public Comment portion of the Apr. 10, 2006 meeting of the Branson Board of Aldermen

First of all what Mr. Groman has said is a miss, a gross misstatement of the facts. The Tourism Tax first of allthe Tourism Enhancement Tax we were asked numerous times whether or not it would be captured by the TIF and we always said and in a public meeting said that it would be captured by the TIF and was not exempt under the TIF law. What Mr. Groman is referring to is that after the TIF law was put onto the agenda or onto the ballot before it was passed at the same time concurrently happening with that was a relocation of the foot print for the Wal-Mart Store.

The developer came back to the city came back to the council and advised the council that with the change being mandated by Wal-Mart without some additional resources it would not be possible to buy the additional land that would be required and to site prep it. So the plan went forward with the understanding that if the TIF passed that those dollars which would be have to be legally captured by the TIF District would be necessary to help finance the new footprint for the Wal-Mart and the Sam’s Club that was being demanded by Wal-Mart.

There was nothing done under the table there was nothing done deceitful Mr. Groman everything was done out in the open and it fits very logically together if in fact you would in fact ask the questions and get answers before giving your misguided and improper opinion. So everything was done fully above board fully and fully disclosed and the reason that these things happened was because they were concurrently happening as the foot print was being changed by Wal-Mart.

It just so happened that the TIF vote was put on the ballot at the same time that Wal-Mart was redesigning its foot print up there. Had that not happened and had that vote not passed then according to Wal-Mart and according to the developer they would not be able to do the TIF plan or the expansion of it and the new foot print for the new Wal-Mart Store. Now how factual that is at the end of the day can it be rearranged we don’t know yet that’s what has been worked on for a long time and is continuing to be worked onbut again Mr. Groman, nothing was done under the table nothing was misstated except your comments and this project goes on in the same manner as it has always been disclosed and told that it would be.

Thank you Mr. Mayor.

Note: Transcribed from tapes of meeting purchased from the City of Branson by Gary J. Groman.

Over the last two years, today is Mar. 17, 2006, The Ole Seagull has been expanding his fishing horizons by using midges more often. The reason is simple; on Lake Taneycomo midges are prolific year round and make up a large part of the trout’s diet. From a KIS perspective, Keep It Simple, on a day to day basis, the Ole Seagull uses only five midges which he refers to as “The Ole Seagull’s Small Five.

Four out of the five are “zebra” midge patterns in size 18, the Copper Dun, Primrose and Pearl, Rusty, and the Ugly (Not to be confused with the “Big Ugly”). The fifth is a plain size 18 midge pattern, the Red Tungsten Bead Head. They are pictured immediately below.

While recognizing that other very successful and better fishermen than he that use different patterns and colors, these are the midges that the Ole Seagull uses very successfully day after day. See the article “KIS fishing the midge on Branson’s Lake Taneycomo” for techniques etc. or the “The Ole Seagull’s Fishing Journal” as part of the Lake Taneycomo Fishing Report in the Branson Courier for more detailed information. For pattern recipes and current fly fishing information contact River Run Outfitters.

Note: To contact Gary J. Groman, a.k.a. The Ole Seagull “click here,” select “The Ole Seagull” from the drop down menu in the “To- Please select a recipient” box near the top of the page, and submit your message.

Although there are efforts at every level to remove all vestiges of Christ, God, and Christianity from public life no where has the movement been more obvious or successful than in removing Christ and the very Christmas Story from the public celebration of Christmas. Currently the emphasis seems to be on removing the very word “Christmas” from “Christmas.”

To me the reason is obvious, “One cannot even say the word “Christmas” without mentioning “Christ.” To completely get “Christ” out of “Christmas” the name of the very holiday that is being celebrated must be changed.

In recent years, those who would take “Christmas” out of “Christmas,” for whatever reason have developed a strategy of “political correctness” and “let’s not mention Christmas because it might offend someone.” The word they would substitute for “Christmas” is “holiday” and the phrase they would substitute for “Merry Christmas” is “Happy Holidays.”

A recent column appearing in the Dec. 24, 2004 Wall Street Journal contained an illustration of just how far the pendulum has swung. It pointed out that “the mayor of Somerville, Mass., apologized for mistakenly calling his December celebration a “Christmas party. He should have called it, he said, a “holiday party.”

Now there would be those that would say that something like that can’t happen here in the land of “Ozark Mountain Christmas,” “Old Time Christmas,” and the “Adoration Parade.”

“That might be the way we wish it were but is it the way it is?”

The Dec. 24, 2004 edition of the Branson Daily Independent contained a letter from a lady who, while eating in a local restaurant with her husband, received the greeting of “Happy Holidays,” from their server. It’s the same greeting that a lot of us, and, probably tens of thousands of visitors to Branson, received during “Ozark Mountain Christmas.” When her husband said, “I think you mean ‘Merry Christmas’” she quickly responded, “Oh, we can’t say that unless the customer does.” I would echo the words that the writer of the letter used to describe the incident, “How sad.”

In my mind, the name “Ozarks Mountain Christmas” creates a different expectation than would “Ozarks “Mountain Hanukah,” “Ozark Mountain Kwanzaa,” or “Ozark Mountain Holidays.” If we are going to tell our employees what greeting to give doesn’t it make more sense to encourage those celebrating “Ozark Mountain Christmas” to say “Merry Christmas” than “Happy Holidays” if for no other reason than it is consistent with the theme and promise of “Ozark Mountain Christmas?” When one adds the “values” that people identify with the Branson Brand and the “faith” of the “Branson Promise” the use of the term “Merry Christmas” becomes even more appropriate.

On Jan. 26, I am going to make a presentation to the Chambers Board of Directors asking them to specifically, “Establish a policy of trying to keep “Christmas” in “Christmas” by, at a minimum, encouraging the use of the term “Merry Christmas” in lieu of “Happy Holidays” in connection with the Chambers involvement with “Ozark Mountain Christmas” and in other situations where it is the intent of the Chamber to specifically express “Christmas” wishes or greetings to those celebrating the holiday of “Christmas.”

If the council deems that this issue is under our purview, and I believe it is, because of not only the message of Christmas, but the fact that “Ozarks Mountain Christmas” is of critical importance to the small businesses this council serves, I would request that this council send a recommendation to the Board reading as follows:

“The Small Business Development Advisory Council supports the position that the Board establish a policy of trying to keep “Christmas” in “Christmas” by, at a minimum, encouraging the use of the term “Merry Christmas” in lieu of “Happy Holidays” in connection with the Chambers involvement with “Ozark Mountain Christmas” and in other situations where it is the intent of the Chamber to specifically express “Christmas” wishes or greetings to those celebrating the holiday of “Christmas.”