Month: October 2005

The Branson Daily Independent, and obviously the Ole Seagull, recommends a “Yes” vote for tourism on Nov. 8. We fully support and endorse the one percent sales tax to be used for the purpose of promoting tourism within the Branson Lakes Area Tourism Community Enhancement District

Tourism is an extremely competitive business with many destinations and opportunities competing for tourists and their dollars. Combine that with the fact that Branson’s competitors have coordinated marketing budgets that are three to five times that of Branson and it is easy to understand why Branson’s overall visitor total is at best anemic and its rate of first time visitors has fallen to critical levels.

Some say that the answer is new things, shopping, shows, stars etc. Since it’s earliest entertainment days Branson’s entertainment product has evolved and changed to meet the needs of its visitors and provide them with an experience that will bring them back again. The current Branson entertainment product is the result of an on going process of adaptation, innovation, improvement and the blending the best of the new with Branson’s rich heritage of family entertainment.

Recent independent research indicates that the majority of the people coming to Branson like what they experience and return. That’s not a hard thing for an Ole Seagull to believe because he came to Branson, liked what he experienced and has been living in the Branson area for the last 20 years. Come to think of it there are probably a lot of people reading this column that have had a similar experience.

In any event, whether it is the unproven new, the tried and proven, or a constantly changing blend of both, in terms of Branson, or any other travel destination, the concept of “build it and they will come” only happens in the movies. Without effective marketing, what will make people want to come and experience Branson?

There are those who say that it is the job of the attractions, shows, restaurants, lodging establishments, etc. to pay for the marketing of Branson. Yet, this very week a lot of people are going to look at store ad inserts in newspapers. The purpose of the ad is to bring customers into the store with the intent that, once they are inside, those customers will purchase the goods that the store is selling.

“Branson Promise,” is a specialty coffee which is on the shelf with 20 other coffees in a local grocery store. How much of the 21 brands of coffee in the store, including “Branson Promise,” will be sold if the store’s marketing does not bring customers into the store? On the other hand, assuming that the store’s marketing is generating traffic, it is up to the makers of “Branson Promise” to market it so that when the stores customers make a coffee selection at the store it is “Branson Promise” rather than one of the other 20 brands of coffee that is being sold.

Branson and other tourist destinations are the “stores” who compete with each other to get visitors. The individual attractions, shows, restaurants, lodging establishments, etc. are the 21 brands of coffee that must market and differentiate themselves from their competitors. The challenge is the same in both instances. If the store, Branson, fails to generate enough visitors, then both the store and those whose products are being sold within the store lose.

Branson desperately needs more funding to competitively market what it has to offer. The proposed tax is as fair a way as there is to provide that funding. As a lovely lady that I know and respect recently said, “This is designed to not only help the economy but insure that it does not hurt the resident” which is why the vast majority of the total tax collected will be paid by the very tourists that the tax is going to market to and the tax itself does not apply to items such as groceries, prescription drugs, medical supplies, gasoline, and other items exempted by Missouri law.

In a community of independent entrepreneurs, diverse attitudes, priorities and backgrounds it’s an amazing feat to have an important initiative of this scope so widely supported. By all of us investing a little, we can, in the words of that same lady, “Stay competitive, stay in the forefront, and maintain our quality of life as we know it — and love it!” We encourage you to vote YES for tourism and our future on Nov. 8.

What happens to the body when the heart does not receive a “constant supply of fresh oxygen enriched blood?” The Ole Seagull isn’t a doctor so he can’t give a medical answer but he feels safe in saying, “The same things that happen to a tourist destination, like Branson, whose marketing does not generate a constant supply of new first time visitors, very little that is good and a lot that could be really really bad.”

Marketing is to Branson what the heart is to the body and funding for marketing is what blood is to the heart. It’s kind of a “catch 22,” even as the heart needs blood to continue pumping the blood so necessary for a healthy body so too does marketing need funding to generate the new first time visitors that Branson needs to maintain and grow its vital tourism industry.

Interestingly enough, one pint of blood going into the heart is one pint of blood coming out of the heart or basically a one for one exchange. On the other hand, the best current estimates are that when the City of Branson, through the Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce & CVB, its current marketing contractor, spends one dollar on marketing the result is one dollar going in and $24 being generated because of the one dollar marketing expenditure; that’s about a 24 to one exchange.

At this point some might say, “If it’s such a great deal why don’t Branson’s businesses pony up the money, why ask the taxpayers to pay for their marketing?” Now the Ole Seagull knows you asked first but let him ask a question before he answers. What happens to the body if the heart does not get enough blood for one reason or another due to injury, clogged arteries, etc? Won’t the blood flow out of the heart be reduced with its attendant negative effects on the body?

The same thing happens with marketing. If the marketing program does not get the funding it needs to do what it has to do its efficiency is reduced along with the rate of new visitors and return visitors. Quite simply, the answer to the question is that no major tourist destination, including Branson, can get enough marketing funding from its businesses alone so that those businesses can survive and there will be enough funding for an effective marketing program.

The challenge is to market in a manner that will maintain the health and vitality of the very businesses that provide the reason for tourists to come. The very businesses that provide employment and are the primary economic lynchpin for most of the income generated in the Branson area. That’s why every major tourist destination uses taxes, paid primarily by the tourists upon whom their very economic livelihoods are based, to help fund their marketing efforts.

Unfortunately, for whatever reason, in the Ole Seagull’s opinion, Branson has never had enough money to effectively market what Branson has to offer. If Branson’s marketing was a heart it would be on life support simply because there was not enough blood, funding, coming into it to permit it to work effectively.

The good news is that the vast majority of those that Branson’s limited marketing reaches, and influences to come to Branson, like Branson and will return. The bad news is that competing destinations like Wisconsin Dells and Gatlinburg/Pigeon Forge spend $7 and $11 million respectively compared to Branson’s $2.9 million. Given that they are competing for basically the same type of visitor as Branson doesn’t it make sense for Branson’s marketing to have the funding necessary to market itself competitively and effectively?

On Nov. 8 voters within the Tourism Enhancement District will decide whether or not to provide Branson’s “tourism heart,” its marketing program, with the funding necessary to effectively market what Branson has to offer. If they vote “Yes” then, for the very first time, Branson will have enough funding to competitively and effectively market Branson.

The easy thing to do is to fluff it off by saying something like, “No way I’m voting for any new tax” or “let them fund their own marketing.” The harder and more responsible thing to do is to look at the reality of the situation and how important tourism is to not only the economic well being of our community but the quality of life that all living in the Branson area enjoys.

“Ah Seagull, you don’t even live in the district. Why do you have a ‘Vote Yes for Tourism’ sticker on your car and sign on your front lawn.” Please tell me that’s a rhetorical question.

On Aug. 29, 2004, in broad daylight, a person or persons unknown cut down a Bradford Pear tree located in front of Jimmy Jets Grill in historic downtown Branson. At the time no one, including, evidently, the police officer who drove by as the tree was being cut down, was aware that a crime was being committed. What small business trying to operate and survive in Branson would dare to intentionally violate an edict of Branson city government? Can anyone, even the police officer who drove by the scene of the alleged crime as it was happening, honestly testify that the chain saw wielding fiend that cut the tree down was the Ole Seagull1?

Come to think of it, there’s probably more evidence as to who it was that cut down dozens of beautiful Oak and other trees on the Taneycomo Lake front because they stood in the way of what the city wanted to do. Even the beloved “Liberty Tree” was not immune to either the price of progress or the lack of respect that the city showed those citizens and businesses that were concerned about preserving the tree. In spite of intense public interest in the tree, or perhaps because of the intense public interest in the tree, it was taken down without any public warning or discussion by the city.

It was that same lack of concern, and compassion on the part of the city that lead up to the demise of the tree in front of Jimmy Jets on Aug. 29, 2004 and the subsequent charging of the now infamous “Olson Sisters Chainsaw Gang,” with the heinous crime of causing its demise. Three columns by the Ole Seagull chronicle the efforts of the Olson sisters to get advice and counsel from the city, the runaround given to them by the city, and the pathetic attempt by the city to cover up its ineptitude and lack of concern regarding the situation after the demise of the tree and the filing of charges against the sisters by the city.

Those columns, in order of suggested reading, are entitled, “Score: Birds and Trees, 10 – City of Branson, DBMA, and Downtown Restaurants, 0,” “In Cold Sap – a story of better actions government through communications,” and “Nixon had Watergate – is this Branson’s Treegate.” They are available on line at www.bransoncourier.com. Just enter the word “Sap”, with an upper case “S”, in the “Search Articles” box at the top of the page and press the “Search” button.

After the charges were filed in the Branson Municipal Court, the sisters requested, for obvious reasons, a change of venue into the Taney County Court system. The request was granted and the city took no further action to pursue the case until the sisters recently filed a motion to have the case dismissed.What an excellent opportunity for the city of Branson to demonstrate compassion and concern along with treating those they serve the way they would like to be treated.

How did the city respond after a year of inactivity on the case? Is it possible that the city attorney suggested to the sisters that each of the three sisters pay a fine “so that we can replant the trees?” Surely not in light of the fact that it has been over a year since the demise of the tree and everyone knows that the Bradford Pear Trees downtown are coming down as part of the down town’s “Cityscape Project.”

Does the city of Branson really want to pass up this opportunity to treat others as it would like to be treated? Is this not perhaps an appropriate time to remember the admonition, “Whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.” Why not take this opportunity to right a wrong rather than step on the tail of a sleeping tiger?

Ok, let’s get to the nubbin of it, eastern and western Taney County live in two different worlds. An outsider watching what has been transpiring recently would sense the same thing that the Ole Seagull sensed when he moved to Taney County just about twenty years ago. That eastern Taney County and the Taney County Commissioners treat the economic generator of the vast majority of Taney County’s tax revenues, the immediate Branson area and its tourism based industry, as an arrant child and a tolerated pain.

Well brothers and sisters let’s relieve the pain. Section 47-310 of the Missouri Revised Statutes says that “The question of dividing any county or of striking from any county any portion thereof, whether for the purpose of forming a new county or of adding to any other county” may be initiated on the petition of not less than one hundred voters of such county. Let’s, just for a moment, imagine, what could happen if just 100 people from Taney County petitioned for the western district of Taney County be struck from Taney County for the purposes of establishing a new county.

Oh, there’s more involved but wouldn’t it be worth the effort. Just think, instead of the Taney County Commission and eastern Taney County concerning themselves with what Branson is doing, or not doing, and the character of its leadership they can concentrate all their efforts on running the new slimmed down Taney County. Branson and Hollister will be located in the new county, which, for the purposes of this column only, the Ole Seagull will call Freeus County.

In the past, the Taney County Commissioners have expressed concern about Branson Landing. With Branson Landing being located in the new Freeus County they would no longer have to concern themselves with issues involving Branson Landing.

Well maybe all but one. The comparison that some people make to the expenditure of over $1 million in fees wasted trying to put the new jail in locations other than the one ultimately chosen and the alleged $5 million the Australians received from the City of Branson on the Branson Landing Project. One thing is for sure, the $1 million is going to contribute as much to the actual building of the new jail as whatever it was the Australians got from the city of Branson contributed to the building of Branson Landing. But, on a more positive note, will Taney County even need a new jail if Freeus County is formed?

With the establishment of Freeus County, current Taney County Commissioner Ron Herschend won’t have to take time from his busy day to disrespect all those involved in the FirstPLACE county wide character education program by using the program as a political tool to publicly lecture the Branson Board of Aldermen on character traits. Hum, come to think of it he will be out of a job so that will give him lots of time to stand in front of the mirror and repeat “Respect – treating others with courtesy and honor” over and over until it becomes his own.

Taney County Commissioners and the citizens of Taney County wouldn’t have to be concerned about taxes to promote tourism because most of the tourism, and the tax revenues it provides, would be in Freeus County. The good news is that they will have plenty of time to figure out how much they will have to raise personal property and real estate taxes or cut services on themselves to make up the loss of Branson’s tourism related tax revenues.

Bee Creek Sewer Project problems such as whether it will cost $16 million or $23 million, where the extra $7 million will come from if its $23 million, and the monthly interest payments on the $16 million dollars that was borrowed for its construction last January will become moot as to Taney County. Those and other problems such as the logic for not extending the project down the very lake shore it is designed to protect will become Freeus problems to solve and finance.

Oh, it would take some effort but won’t it be worth it? Isn’t it a “win-win” situation?” Don’t the impassioned words of Dr. Martin Luther King describe how a lot of people in both the new Freeus County and Taney County would feel if it happened, “Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!”