Interestingly, last week’s column entitled “Mirror mirror on the wall, who brings Branson most of all?” evoked a response that was 100 wrong. There were those who disagreed with the column because they perceived the Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce and CVB (CVB) was being attacked and there were those that agreed with the column because they perceived the CVB was being attacked. Both were wrong.
What the column did was debunk five common “myths” about how the proceeds of the two “tourism taxes” used to fund the marketing of Branson are used. Basically it said that the funds do not have to be spent through not-for-profit entities, used only for “out of area” marketing, or allocated to just one organization.
It went on to point out the reality, that over the entire history of spending the proceeds of the two tourism taxes, that no major contract for marketing etc., using those funds, has ever been granted to another entity except the CVB. Some were quick to point out that the actual control of the two taxes is in the hands of the Branson Board of Aldermen and Branson Lakes Area Tourism Community Enhancement District board. That is true, but doesn’t change the reality of the way the funds have been spent.
The column also pointed out that there was extreme flexibility as to how the marketing funds were spent regardless of the benefit a single business might gain from it. The example of the marketing funds being used to help market the privately owned Branson Airport because of all the new people it is expected to bring into Branson was used to illustrate the point.
As to an attack on the CVB, someone, the Ole Seagull or otherwise, pointing out the reality of what organization is actually getting the contracts is not an attack, it’s a fact. Some thought the Ole Seagull’s suggestion of identifying up to five businesses that have a proven track record for bringing the most new tourists to Branson through their marketing efforts and having them develop a marketing plan for Branson was an attack on the CVB.
How can any reasonable person infer an attack on the CVB by what was written? Is it an attack to state reality? How is it an attack to suggest that it might be a good idea to know exactly what businesses or entities are actually doing marketing that is bringing new people to Branson and take advantage of that expertise to develop a marketing plan for Branson?
Actually, by any measurement, it’s almost inconceivable to an Ole Seagull that the CVB wouldn’t be one of the top five businesses that has a proven track record for bringing the most new tourists to Branson through their marketing efforts. Some might say, “But the CVB isn’t in business, is not for profit and has no attendance to measure.”
To an Ole Seagull, any entity, call it “not for profit” or “for profit” being paid upwards of $1.4 million to market Branson is in “business.” Actual attendance, revenues, or sales taxes paid are a measurement how a particular business is currently doing but serves very little useful purpose in evaluating whether or not the marketing of a particular entity actually brings significant new or return visitors to Branson.
The vast majority of the marketing done in Branson is intercept marketing, getting the visitors already in Branson into their show, attraction or establishment. Not that many businesses actually do marketing intended to bring significant numbers of new visitors to Branson. Obviously without those efforts there would be nothing for those using intercept marketing to intercept. In the opinion of an Ole Seagull, the CVB is one of the few organizations whose marketing actually brings significant new or return visitors to Branson.
The difference between the CVB and, unless an Ole Seagull misses his guess, almost any other entity whose marketing actually brings significant new or return visitors to Branson, is that, for the most part, those entities invest their own money in promoting Branson. They are not guaranteed any amount, $1.4 million or otherwise, “theirs is but to do or die.”
