*
The Irony Of It All
Brad Hollerbach

This Blog Has Annual Economic Impact Of $11,128,026

Posted Monday, October 5, 2009, at 10:10 AM

Comments

View 14 comments or respond
Community discussion is important, and we encourage you to participate as a reader and commenter. Click here to see our Guidelines. We also encourage registered users to let us know if they see something inappropriate on our site. You can do that by clicking "Report Comment" below.
  • That was deep.

    -- Posted by Chief 'Broom on Mon, Oct 5, 2009, at 10:43 AM
  • Brad,

    I think your figures are extremely conservative. (Ya know..Peter Kinder type of fiscal conservatism)

    After utilizing a much more creative system of economic impact, the figure I come up with is much more par for republican political stratagem.

    Infact, you'd be surprised to know that your blog generates a hyperbolic estimate of around (give or take a couple of billion) $2,034,219,083.12 (approximately)

    Unfortunately, with everything there is a flip side. I've taken a formula from the book of fiscal Neo-conic feldercarb and deciphered exactly what your blog costs. (Anything from the electric used to turn on the computer to read your blog to your approximate salary.

    and...*sigh* well...the news is pretty bleak, especially since Obama is the President. By the year 2016 you will have cost the taxpayers of American nearly 500 trillion dollars, not to mention our great-grandchildren will continue to pay 23 trillion dollars annually for the next 223 years in interest.

    Now...had McCain and Palin won, we'd be talking pennies on the dollar. Worse yet, if we get UHC...the cost of reading your blog will multiply ten fold due to the high cost of healthcare, due to the fact that your average reader probably wears glasses or bi-focals (or will need to)

    So...while you make a small portion of your readers happy with your blog posts, the fact is the American taxpayers and their childrens childrens children will be paying for the repercussions for all eternity.

    -- Posted by Egotistical_Bigot on Mon, Oct 5, 2009, at 12:16 PM
  • Actually E_B your estimate is close to what I get with my other Economic Impact formula that I call Brad's Unbiased Money-Making Economic Research or BUMMER for short.

    However, I thought two billion dollars might stretch the believability of even the people who read this blog. Eleven million is far more plausible.

    Thanks for reading.

    -- Posted by Brad_Hollerbach on Mon, Oct 5, 2009, at 2:10 PM
  • Brad,

    The government is burning through trillions. They can't even mention some new program in casual passing without estimating it be X amount of trillions of dollars. The American public is desensitized to these ridiculous monetary amounts. Billions doesn't really have the shock value that it once did.

    If they remade the Beverly Hillbillies again, the next thing you know 'ol Jed would have to be a trillionare.

    -- Posted by Lumpy on Mon, Oct 5, 2009, at 5:03 PM
  • $38,000,000 really isn't a lot.

    Maybe it seems a lot if you don't really understand the process involved in calculating the numbers. Go look them up. Of course, just like any report, one can fudge the numbers a little high or a little low depending on the goals of whoever is paying for the report.

    but there are thousands of people who came to missouri to watch the event, or happened to be in missouri and stopped by and bought things. Not to mention the partipants and their entire teams/trianers/photographers/etc who had to stay in a hotel and eat at local eateries. $38,000,000 over 11 days is nothing.

    -- Posted by futile_rant on Tue, Oct 6, 2009, at 1:22 AM
  • "Billions doesn't really have the shock value that it once did."

    Lump,

    Exactly...sort of like that episode where Dr. Evil asks for $10 Million dollars when he comes back through the time machine to the current decade.

    -- Posted by Egotistical_Bigot on Tue, Oct 6, 2009, at 7:27 AM
  • You are right, futille_rant $38 million isn't a lot. It's not in the grand scheme of things when billions and trillions are the norm when discussing government.

    What $38 million does look like is a mighty return on investment when compared to what the taxpayers via the state tourism board reportedly laid out for the Tour of Missouri. It would appear that we got a bargain.

    Did the race make an "impact" on the state's economy? Probably, but in my opinion it was marginal at best and that a lot of this research is manipulated to make it look significantly more than it really is. My feeling is that a lot of money that would have already been spent in the state was already going to be spent here -- race or no race.

    The race is not an economic engine. It is a diversion for the masses.

    TFR

    -- Posted by Brad_Hollerbach on Tue, Oct 6, 2009, at 9:56 AM
  • "I've always been suspicious of "economic impact" claims made by governments and institutions. They invariably appear to be outrageously high with little supporting evidence to back them up."

    It's one thing to be suspicious - it's another to assert that they are wrong without actually analyzing the research methods. I understand this is a blog and all and as such should be taken with a grain of salt, but c'mon. On one hand you say there's no evidence backing up their claims, but you lay no evidence out to the contrary.

    -- Posted by The Dictionary on Tue, Oct 6, 2009, at 11:54 AM
  • SLinger,

    I've actually had a slinger.

    -- Posted by Egotistical_Bigot on Tue, Oct 6, 2009, at 11:55 AM
  • Yes, slinger this is my opinion. I have no faith in any economic impact analysis including this one. I believe they all tend to grovel and skew the results to whatever organization is paying their bill.

    As far as "evidence," I base my criticism on my own common sense and my personal observations of the local leg of the race.

    For instance, I know a couple dozen people who watched the race go by downtown. They spent $0 above and beyond what they would normally spend on a daily basis.

    And while the crowd estimate in Cape Girardeau was reported at 5000 people, I feel that was inflated considerably. I drove through downtown 30 minutes after the finish and the only traffic congestion that I witnessed was from the race caravan or the racers themselves headed west on William and Independence back to their hotels.

    Traffic was really not all that bad and certainly not what you would expect from "5000 people." It certainly didn't measure up to an average sized Show-Me Center event or the downtown July 4th celebrations of years gone by.

    Of course traffic does not necessarily equate to additional spending. I read of only one downtown business that showed a significant increase in revenue. The rest were either barely up, flat or down.

    I suppose that our stage of the race could just be an outlier and that the "throngs" at the other stage finales accounted for 8 million dollars in reputed increased spending during the worst recession in decades. I guess that could be true.

    Personally, I don't buy it.

    TFR

    -- Posted by Brad_Hollerbach on Tue, Oct 6, 2009, at 1:14 PM
  • Again brad, you do not even know basics of economic impact studies.

    If they say it added $38m to missouri it does not even include Missourians who came to watch the race, only out of state visitors. So because your friends spent $0 or $1000 it adds nothing to the economic impact value.

    There were atleast 1,000 people from the teams and crews of the teams alone. Not including family.

    Not to mention the media that came to cover the event.

    And I think you severely under estimate some cycling fans and their devotion to racing. And Given that the race is the 3rd largest in the country and the only major one in the midwest I think tens of thousands of people from out of state is definately possible. I see an insane amount of cyclists everyday in the summer where I live in St. Louis and I went to the st. louis stage and

    Hotel + food + gas + spending money + event funding to pay local people to set things up could easily run to $38,000,000.

    they estimate that on average out of staters spent around 900 for their trip which on average lasted a little over 4 days. That would mean around 40,000 out of staters came to the event over the 11 days. <4000 a day. It does not seem unreasonable at all.

    Now sure they may have rounded up, but I am sure it was close enough not to make such a fuss over.

    -- Posted by futile_rant on Tue, Oct 6, 2009, at 5:28 PM
  • I'm not totally disagreeing with your overall premise.

    Here are some other stories & blogs about this subject which actually outline some of the real issues surrounding the study, both positive and negative:

    http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/10-speed/10-speed/2009/10/tour-of-missouri-attr...

    http://www.news-leader.com/article/20091002/NEWS01/910020385/1007/Economic-benef...

    -- Posted by The Dictionary on Wed, Oct 7, 2009, at 12:44 AM
  • Brad... I like your blogs and especially the way you look at things!

    -- Posted by T-Bone1 on Wed, Oct 7, 2009, at 7:44 AM
  • Futile_Rant, based on the published 2008 Tour of Missouri Event Recap, you are wrong.

    You can find it at http://www.tourofmissouri.com/files/TOM_2008_Recap_Final.pdf although be advised that it is a very large PDF (115 megs).

    In that report, they broke out the reputed $29 million of economic impact from 2008 as follows:

    $3.8m was from local Missourians.

    $10.3m was from non-local Missourians

    $15.6m was from non-Missourians

    So, yes, the reputed $38 million reported this year can be attributed to all spending not just non-Missourians, contrary to your misconception. The final report for this year has not yet been released.

    That doesn't even broach the questions I have regarding the validity of the surveying mechanism.

    ANY survey can be biased in ANY direction, by polling specific individuals.

    For instance, in this case the people actually conducting the surveys may have polled more heavily the people who arrived significantly early to events (indicating die-hard bicyclist fans or people from out of state) or those who they overheard with an accent or didn't look like they were "local."

    TFR

    -- Posted by Brad_Hollerbach on Wed, Oct 7, 2009, at 8:47 AM