In a letter to the editor appearing in last Sunday’s edition of this paper, Michael London refers to the fact that the Ole Seagull recognizes the need of good marketing for Branson’s future success. He then goes on to ask, “I wonder how he feels about the Chamber’s most recent report to the city that showed virtually every segment of the Branson business community is substantially up over the last year, except theatres.” Assuming that is not a rhetorical question, let there be no more wonderment.
He feels elation and happiness for those shows, attractions, restaurants, lodging, retail, and other businesses that are successful and participating full measure in the year-to-year economic growth indicated by the figures. He thanks God for the marketing program that is bringing the visitors to Branson that, in large part, enables that success and growth within our community. A marketing program, he believes, that is the primary reason that the dire forecasts of the city’s consultants as to what was going to happen to existing retail immediately after the opening of Branson Landing did not materialize.
At the same time, the reality of the situation is that those numbers consist of totals and averages. In any given category, a given entity may be above or below the average. For those below the averages, or not otherwise participating in the reported growth the Ole Seagull feels concern.
Some might ask, “Why did you preface your response with the statement, ‘Assuming that’s not a rhetorical question?’” On Aug. 18, London sent an email to the Ole Seagull and others within the community about a recent column that the Ole Seagull had written. He said that the Ole Seagull was trying “to dismiss the concerns of the shows and other community members regarding the recent trend of visitors seeing less shows while they are in Branson.” The column was entitled, “Why aren’t more people playing at Branson’s shows?” It and a companion column, “Where’s the beef that brings millions to Branson,” are available on line at www.BransonCourier.com under “Editorials.”
London closes his email by saying, “Ignoring, or dismissing the trend, as Gary seems to do and influence others to do, might have the same dire results as ignoring the FACT that you are getting fewer miles per gallon as you are driving into the desert.” An Ole Seagull can only suggest another fact. In trying to mitigate the potential “dire results” that could occur while driving in the desert it is not as simple as just having enough gasoline and one should not ignore other factors which could cause the same dire results.
In addition to gasoline, one would not want to ignore such things as the condition of the vehicle cooling system, its general mechanical condition, and the condition of its tires. Ironically, in last Sundays letter to the editor, London’s sole proposed solution to the apparent lack of Branson’s shows participating the current economic uptrend is “That at least half of our marketing dollars be spent on show focused ads, while the other half be used to sell everything we have to offer.”
Would it not be a good idea to identify the actual reason or reasons why shows are not participating in Branson’s current economic uptrend before changing a marketing strategy that seems to be working for most of Branson’s businesses? May an Ole Seagull suggest that an appropriate and obvious first step might be a study to do exactly that?
Are there too many shows in Branson? How many shows are enough? Is the price of tickets a factor? How does the fact that a lot of shows and theatres sell their tickets to time-shares, ticket resellers, or others at drastically reduced prices impact on the problem? Does the quality of some of the shows and the condition of some of the theatres play a part? How vital is a local intercept marketing program to a theatre’s success? How much, if at all, is the current national marketing program for the Branson area affecting shows adversely?
It would seem that the shows and the community would be in a much better position to find, evaluate, and implement an appropriate solution after such a study. But, if an Ole Seagull were a betting Seagull, he’d bet, from a show perspective, that Pogo was right, “We have met the enemy and he is us.”
