Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

August 2012 TNS 212 229202 Houston Visitor Profile Calendar Year 2011.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "August 2012 TNS 212 229202 Houston Visitor Profile Calendar Year 2011."— Presentation transcript:

1 August 2012 TNS Houston Visitor Profile Calendar Year 2011

2 ©TNS 2012 Contents 1 Growth Summary3 2 Houston Visitor and Brief Abstract 5 3 Executive Summary/Implications 8 4 Appendix I. Profile from TravelsAmerica Syndicated Survey 16 5 Appendix IIa. Opinions About Houston and Competitors from Follow-up Survey 42 6 Appendix IIb. Media Choices from Follow-up Survey 66 7 Appendix IIc. General Advertising Awareness from Follow-up Survey 70 8 Appendix IId. Specific GHCVB Ad Awareness from Follow-up Survey 77 9 Appendix IIe. Website Usage from Follow-up Survey Appendix IIf. Houston Visitors Choices and Characteristics from Follow-up Survey Appendix IIg. Attitudes and Behaviors from Follow-up Survey Appendix IIh. Final Comments Appendix IIi. Research Purposes and Methods122 2

3 ©TNS 2012 TNS Growth Map The Greater Houston Convention & Visitors Bureau (GHCVB) has two primary goals:  To attract more visitors to the city  Encourage longer stays, more repeat visits, and greater spending among those who do choose to visit Houston. 3

4 ©TNS 2012 Growth Summary Precise plans for growth  Maintain focus on large Texas markets within driving distance and add medium-sized Texas markets (such as Waco) and cities in bordering states, such as New Orleans, Shreveport, and Oklahoma City as advertising budgets allow  Continue to use the current commercials, which are strong enough to change people’s minds, but also be open to testing new ideas/enhancements and adding new media to build synergy within a campaign  In addition to the arts and cultural focus, consider adding some family-oriented advertising, since Houston has many attractions for children such as the zoo and the space center  Look for ways to get Houston lovers to act as advocates – testimonials, facebook incentives, etc.  Keep the website up-to-date and comprehensive; out- of-towners note that they would like more info on what locals probably already know, such as good, off-the- beaten-path restaurants  The somewhat younger core visitor is adopting new media, which warrants some attention by GHCVB to enhance digital advertising and to use mobile device- friendly websites and travel-planning applications.  A “Digital Life” component is being added to TravelsAmerica in 2012, which will help guide future online media decisions. 4 Growth insights  Metro areas in Texas represent critical markets for Houston. As shown by TNS’ Travels-America syndication, Houston heavily depends on those who live in the state (62% of visitors live in Texas)  Fortunately, the GHCVB ads appeal to potential visitors – deemed very likeable by viewers – and are strong enough make those who had rejected Houston to re-think visiting “after seeing these very interesting commercials about what Houston has to offer”  GHCVB advertising clearly helps Houston’s tourism – drawing about one visitor in nine (11%) last year with ads that largely focus on arts/culture; Houston lovers also point out that Houston has even broader benefits  About one past year overnight Houston leisure visitor in five has gone to a GHCVB website for one of four primary reasons – what to do, find savings, where to stay, and where to eat – but critics think the website information could be improved  The core visitor, who consistently praises Houston, does not allocate much time for reading, but has media habits that make them easy to reach in other ways – they watch TV comedies and use social media more than other groups; radio and the Internet reaches most of them as well.

5 The Houston Visitor and Brief Abstract

6 ©TNS 2012 Age 47 Average Income for travelers ($71,700) Married (60%) College Grad (35%) Caucasian (85%) Choose urban activities at level similar to Houston visitors Choose more outdoor activities more often than Houston visitors (rural sightseeing; state/national parks; beaches; wildlife viewing) Travel with children (26%) Typical US Traveler The typical Houston visitor 6 Age 54 High Income ($75,700) Married (67%) College Grad (46%) Caucasian (85%) Family/roots in Houston Will pay more to visit original places Buy on quality, not on price Like to travel to exotic places Plan to Visit Houston (Next 2 Years) Age 46 High Income ($73,400) Married (58%) College Grad (52%) Caucasian (84%) Love to shop markets/ specialty stores Seek lowest prices Like to shop before purchasing Rather try something new than enjoy familiar Willing to fly Unlikely to buy clothes for comfort only More likely drive an SUV than average Watch TV comedies Half use social media daily Target/Core Visitors (Females 35-55) Age 54 High Income ($77,100) Married (66%) College Grad (45%) Caucasian (84%) Family/friends ask for travel advice Will pay more to visit original places Income sufficient to satisfy important desires Quality worth extra $$$; buy for quality, not price Like to travel to exotic places Unlikely to buy clothes for comfort over style Shoppers, but not bargain hunters Unlikely to seek lowest prices Prime (Lucrative) Houston Visitors (Past Year O/N Visitors)

7 ©TNS 2012 Continue to nurture Texans as potential visitors – Houston tourism depends on them with nearly two-thirds (62%) of Houston visitors living in Texas Although improving from last year, most Texas travelers still go somewhere else on their vacations (24% visited Houston from 32% in 2009) With far more visitors preferring Houston because of ‘”family/roots there” than any of its competitors (Austin, San Antonio, DFW, and New Orleans), Houston should continue to punctuate advertising messaging with the strengths of the city – which it does. Opportunities “Houston is not one of my favorite places to visit, but that may change after seeing these very interesting commercials about what Houston has to offer.” Brief abstract 7 Houston’s visitation in 2011 begins to recover (+21%) and exceeds the growth in Texas (stable) and the US (+4%) Four out of five (81%) leisure visitors spend the night, similar to last year – the group that advertising can most encourage to stay longer and visit more attractions (and spend more $$$) The lucrative business traveler component grows slightly as well (23% from 18%) Both spending and length of stay climb in the past year Houston outscores its competitors (Austin, San Antonio, DFW, and New Orleans) on two popular urban activities (dining and cultural/ performing arts) and wins acclaim for handicap accessibility Of five key measures as a leisure destination, Houston meets or exceeds last year on all five, with a notable gain on “overall opinion” of the city Overall awareness of the ad campaign continues to climb (36% from 29% and 23% ) The new print ad “Houston is” gets even higher reviews than “My Houston” The Target group of visitors (35-55 females) consistently assign top/near top ratings to features of the ads Discover ways to showcase opinions of strong advocates Positive Trends and Results “I absolutely LOVE Houston

8 Executive Summary/Implications

9 ©TNS Volume of Visitors: Houston’s visitation in 2011 begins to recover (+21%) and exceeds the change in Texas (stable) and the US (+4%) Travel Spending in Houston. Visitors spend substantial amounts in Houston, averaging $498 per travel party (up from $432 last year): Business travelers ($756) spend more than leisure travelers ($428) Overnight leisure visitor spending ($498) more than doubles that of leisure day-trippers ($205) With longer stays (lodging) and higher transportation costs, overnight non-Texas residents’ spending ($823) far exceeds Houston residents ($430) and non-Houston Texas residents ($451). Source of Visitors. Texas supplies the majority (62%) of Houston visitors; Louisiana follows distantly (6%). Trip Purpose. Most visitors to Houston are tourists (not business travelers); however, Houston attracts more of the lucrative (more hotels/motels) business travel than the national average (23% vs. 12%) and the level grows from last year (18%). Leisure Overnighters. Even with the growth in business travel, leisure travelers still make up over two-thirds of all Houston travel (68%), most of whom spend the night (81%) and represents the group that advertising can most encourage to stay longer and visit more attractions (and spend more $$$). Timing. The heaviest travel to Houston peaks in June – similar to prior years. Importance of Tourism to Houston Executive summary/implications

10 ©TNS Demographics: Houston visitors resemble visitors elsewhere, with some variations: Visitors from New York City/Chicago/Washington DC ($105,800) report higher earnings than others ($73,400 total Houston visitors), a gap similar to last year Ethnic comparisons with total US travelers show a larger proportion of African American visitors (10% vs. 7%) and Spanish origin (11% vs. 5%). Typical Travel Planning Horizons. Similar to overall US travelers, many (43%) Houston visitors decide to take the trip within two weeks of departure. As expected, leisure overnighters (37%) less frequently plan to visit on short notice (within two weeks) than leisure day-trippers (63%) or than Houston residents (69%). Travelers Primarily Rely on “Offline” Information Sources. Houston visitors rely primarily on their own experience (24%) and friends/relatives (16%) to gather travel information, similar to other travelers. Houston Visitors Most Often Book “Online.” Mirroring their US counterparts, half of Houston visitors book at least some component of their trip online (50%). Most Visitors Drive. While most drive (71%), a slightly higher-than-average fly to Houston – aided by a somewhat larger share of business travelers. Overnighters Spend More than Day-trippers. Because of extra time to see/do more things and because they incur lodging expenses, leisure overnight visitors spend more than twice as much as day-trippers ($498 vs. $205). Business overnighters spend the most ($933) and stay just a bit longer than leisure overnighters (4.0 vs. 3.5 nights). However, overall, Houston visitors spend both more time and more money than last year. Profile: Trip and Travel Characteristics Executive summary/implications

11 ©TNS Houston Relies on Texas Tourism. Since most Houston visitors live in Texas, proximity is critical for Houston tourism. The top eight city sources of visitors are in Texas (led by Houston, Dallas-Ft. Worth, and Austin). Geography influences competitive market set. Dallas-Ft. Worth, Austin, and San Antonio residents prefer southern or western states for additional vacation travel while New York, Chicago, and Washington DC residents seek destinations clustered in the Northeast. Despite this polarization, both groups most often select Florida as a place they have visited and/or want to visit in the future. San Antonio Generally Leads Competitors in Image and Attribute Rankings Preference for Houston depends on visitation. Past year overnight leisure travelers prefer Houston on most destination attributes. However, travelers as a whole more often choose San Antonio when comparing Texas metropolitan areas. San Antonio excels (over Houston and other competitors) on attributes ranked as most important in a travel destination including good value for the money, friendly/welcoming, reasonable costs, explore/sightsee, good service, and lots to see/do. Travelers view Houston as stronger competitor for urban activities, notably variety of dining options and cultural/ performing arts. Houston also gets high marks for handicap accessibility. Opinion ratings of Houston remain positive, but trail other Texas cities. The majority of visitors perceive Houston positively in most ratings, with consistently higher ratings than last year: overall opinion (56% from 49%), value for the money (63%; 60%), experience in Houston (72%; 69%), likely to return (71%; 69%), and a place to recommend (65%; 64%). However, San Antonio and Austin lead on all of these measures. Competitive Standing Executive summary/implications

12 ©TNS Advertising awareness directly relates to distance from Houston and past visitation In Texas, Houston’s unaided ad awareness trails San Antonio. San Antonio leads in overall unaided ad awareness (26%), above all other Texas cities in the study (Houston 15%, DFW at 10%, and Austin 10%). Past year visitors (20%) and Houston residents (20%) most often remember a Houston ad. Among the GHCVB ads, overall awareness increases from last year. Building on similar campaigns from prior years, ad recognition climbs from last year with both mediums gaining substantially: Print (20% from 12%) and TV (31% from 25%). Combined, more than one in three remembers at least one ad (36% from 29% in 2011, 23% in 2010, and 19% in 2009). Print ads ratings climb. Not only does “My Houston” gain in awareness, but it gains on the impression of Houston and, especially, likeability. “Houston is” pulls very strong ratings. Boding well for the next campaign, “Houston is,” gets even higher marks for likeability, ability to influence future vacations, and viewers consider it very believable. Members of all groups (consistently 4 out of 5) clearly associate the ad with cultural events and sites. The three TV commercials generate very positive reactions. Although the Jim Parsons commercial leads the other two ads, the differences are small and the perceptions are strong, especially for likeability of the ads – which supports the steady increase in awareness noted above. Advertising effectiveness for Houston. Advertising generates about one out nine (11%) visits to Houston – not counting the effect from any online advertising. Advertising Awareness Executive summary/implications

13 ©TNS GHCVB’s attention to the core visitor succeeds: The core visitor/target market reacts to the ads similarly to all Houston visitors. Their recognition of the ads (37%) nearly matches that of all Houston visitors (36%) and they are about equally likely to visit because of the positive impact of the ads (12% vs. 11%). However, they consistently, and often strongly, view GHCVB ads more positively than others. Regardless of ad campaign (“My Houston,” “Houston is,” Jim Parsons, ZZ Top, or Lyle Lovett), the core visitor ALWAYS views it more positively. Their impression of Houston places 5 to 15 points higher (depending upon ad), the likeability of the ad 4 to 12 points higher, and the ability to influence future visits 1 to 15 points higher. Further, the impact of the ads on them, regarding Houston, improves more than others. Positive reactions to the ads (seeking more information, deciding to visit, lengthening stay/adding attractions) jumps by more than a third between the core visitor and non-core visitor (25% positive reaction vs. 18%). TV builds the strongest effect. The core visitor’s awareness of Houston’s advertising (unaided) by TV dwarfs that of the non-core visitor (85% vs. 52%); however, the non-core visitor more often remembers print and online ads, but at a much lower level. Almost everyone (core and non-core visitor) watches TV daily. The key differences are that more non-core visitors read (especially newspapers) while more core visitors connect to social media. Comedies top the list among core visitors. Far fewer non-core visitors watch them (55% vs. 76%). Target Market (Core Visitor: Females 35-55) Executive summary/implications

14 ©TNS Greater Houston CVB Website – Value Still Key Destination website users look for deals. Travelers choose savings/value as the top desired feature in a travel destination website while “save money” ranks 18th out of 22 statements about the GHCVB website evaluations by its users. Although it moves up a couple of places (from 20 th last year), Houston still has an opportunity to improve already high satisfaction by making savings/value a stronger element. Online connections compete with TV. Just as many people now connect to the Internet daily (82%) as watch TV (80%), underscoring a shift toward continuous connectivity; radio ranks third (62%). While daily contact via social media lags weekly magazine readership, it ranks very high (51% daily) for the target market/core group (female visitors 35-55). Media: When. “Prime time” is still prime time –viewing peaks, by a wide margin, between 6 and 10 pm – whether broadcast or cable TV, and although not nearly as ubiquitous, YouTube and Internet broadcasts. Media: What. News and dramas lead other viewing choices – except for the core market. That group prefers comedies to everything else – a topic that ranks much lower (fifth) among the non-core market. Houston Generates Good and Improving Levels of Satisfaction Partially recovering from last year’s dip, 60% (overall) claim satisfaction with their Houston visit. By group, Houston residents’ satisfaction drops from last year (67% from 82%), but still exceeds the level noted by other Texans (53%). Satisfied visitors help build strong word-of-mouth “advertising” that every destination needs to supplement their advertising campaigns. The Website, Media Choices, and Satisfaction Executive summary/implications

15 ©TNS Houston Draws The Business Traveler. As companies continue to find alternatives to face-to-face meetings, company travel budgets will continue to decrease. Houston will need to counter this trend by remaining attractive to business travelers, but also by spurring greater interest as a leisure destination as well. Key images to underscore in promoting Houston include its value (a key concern among travelers) and urban appeal. As noted by comments from respondents – the ads make some of them want to give Houston a try. Houston Leisure Travel Potentially More Lucrative. With more than half (57%) of Houston overnighters currently opting to stay in a hotel, Houston already succeeds in encouraging guests to use paid accommodations. However, finding ways to encourage these travelers to stay more days in the city could add to tourism spending – especially if hotels can capture more of those visiting friends and family. Tough Economy Impacts Tourism. In the past, Houston was slower to rebound than other areas, but posts a more robust recovery in 2011 than either the US or the state of Texas. Emphasis on Houston as a culturally diverse, family-friendly, cosmopolitan city near the gulf can attract more overnight leisure visitors and strong advertising (continuously improving) will help the city become more competitive. Messaging. Promoting hotels’ affordability, relaxation value, avoidance of being an intrusive houseguest, and easy access to Houston’s cosmopolitan dining/entertainment could entice travelers to choose paid accommodations. Media. Most people view television (80%) and Internet sites (82%) daily, with vast messaging potential and both of these can target the core market (females 35-55); the core market also has an affinity for social media that will likely continue to expand. Assessment Executive summary/implications

16 Appendix I. Profile From TravelsAmerica Syndicated Survey

17 ©TNS 2012 Volume of visitors Market Overview (Person Trips):  Compared to the prior year, 2011 person-trips gain in the overall US ( +4%), Texas (nearly stable), and especially in Houston (+21%; to 11 million).  Houston’s gain in Quarter 2 includes the recovery from 2010’s substantial dip, more in line (and improving) with earlier years. Q4a. Please indicate the US state(s) visited (Person Trips - proj.) (day or overnight trip) Q4d. Please indicate the US cities(s) visited (Person Trips - proj.) (day or overnight trip) US, Non-Texas 871,714,000 US, Non-Texas 506,332,000 US, Non-Texas 344,539,000 Type of Person Trips (Visitors) CY 2006CY 2007CY 2008CY 2009CY 2010CY % Change Total US1,084,344,0001,233,242,000938,563,000852,967,000913,318,000951,419,000+4% Total Texas80,625,00076,424,00066,849,00060,409,00063,318,00063,593, % Total Houston12,087,00012,661,0009,488,0009,812,0009,010,000010,908,000+21% Q12,838,0002,994,0002,302,0002,283,0002,062,0002,167,000+5% Q22,793,0002,787,0002,649,0002,706,0002,075,0003,187,000+54% Q33,109,0003,218,0002,310,0001,977,0002,488,0003,120,000+25% Q43,348,0003,661,0002,227,0002,847,0002,385,0002,434,000+2% 17

18 ©TNS 2012 Visitor types 18 Houston VISITORS by TYPE Base: Houston Visitors PB*: Personal Business/Other Total: Day 20%; Overnight 80% Leisure: Day 19%; Overnight 81% Q1b. Please select the primary purpose for trips... (demo wtd; trip level) Leisure = 68% Leisure = 73% Leisure = 71% Day/Overnight Varies by Type of Trip:  Trips of 50+ miles typically involve an overnight stay for both Business and Leisure trips  Houston hosts far more leisure than business visitors, but business climbs from last year.

19 ©TNS 2012 Trip purpose/visitor source 19 Trip/Visitor Characteristics % of Visitors to State TYPE OF TRIP Base: Visitors to Houston; Texas; US LOCATION OF RESIDENCE Base: Visitors to Houston Q1b. Which of the following was the PRIMARY purpose of trip to... (Household Trip Level – demo wtd, not adjusted for travel party size) Panel: Residence of visitors (Household Level) Overall:  Two-thirds (68%) of Houston visitors primarily travel there for leisure, but Houston hosts a larger share of business travelers than average Texas or US cities  More than half (62%) of Houston visitors live in Texas – consistent with the past.

20 ©TNS 2012 Visitor source by state/DMA Proximity Counts:  Most visitors (62%) live in Texas  Nearby states and Texas DMAs contribute heavily to Houston’s visitor count. Source of Visitors: Top States (1%+) Base: Visited Houston % of Visitors Residing in... Panel: State/DMA residence of those who visited Houston (Household Level) Source of Visitors: Top DMAs (2%+) Base: Visited Houston % of Visitors Residing in... 20

21 ©TNS 2012 Destinations: Houston visitation NON-TEXAS RESIDENT TEXAS (Non-Houston) RESIDENT Visitation Patterns for Houston – Household Level, All Travelers Q8a: Please indicate US cities visited for leisure in past three years. Q8b. Please indicate cities visited within the past 12 months. Q8c: Which US cities plan to visit within the next two years for leisure? (Household Level) 21 A Different Viewpoint – How Many Texans and Non-Texans Visit Houston:  Slightly improved from last year, Texans (non-Houston residents) still tend to travel elsewhere (other than Houston) for vacations  Typical of most destinations, Houston draws over half of its visitors from within the state (62%, shown earlier). Living farther away and having many destinations from which to choose, only a few Non-Texans (2%) visited Houston in the past three years.

22 ©TNS 2012 Visitor demographics Houston Visitors Resemble Visitors to Other Areas, With a Few Variations:  Houston visitors report similar incomes to both overall US and Texas travelers; however, those living in New York, Chicago, or Washington, DC continue to claim higher earnings  Overall household composition for Houston visitors often (45%) includes three or more people in the household – similar to overall US travelers – thus, the family market is important for Houston  Ethnicity comparisons continue to show a comparatively larger proportion of African-Americans among Houston’s visitors. Panel: Age, Income, Children, Ethnicity. (Household Level – demo wtd) CY 2011 Demographics All Travelers Texas Visitors Houston Visitors Houston Visitor & Houston Resident Houston Visitor & DFW/Austin/San Antonio Resident Houston Visitor & NY/Chicago/DC Resident* Average Age Average Hhld Income$71,700$70,700$73,400$74,600$74,300$105,800 % Male36%37%36%41%30%39% % Married60%61%63%57%64%50% Household Composition % One Person22%20%19%24%19%28% % Two People % Three or More Ethnicity % Caucasian85%84%76%81%73%71% % Spanish Origin % African-American *Very small sample (12); treat as qualitative only 22

23 ©TNS 2012 Visitor demographics Panel: Age, Income, Children, Ethnicity. (Household Level – demo wtd) CY 2010 Demographics All Travelers Texas Visitors Houston Visitors Houston Visitor & Houston Resident Houston Visitor & DFW/Austin/San Antonio Resident Houston Visitor & NY/Chicago/DC Resident* Average Age Average Hhld Income$70,800$70,600$72,800$69,100$73,600$113,700 % Male38%40%36% 39%70% % Married58%61%60%56%60%85% Household Composition % One Person22%21%23%19%26%7% % Two People % Three or More Ethnicity % Caucasian86%85%81%85%76%87% % Spanish Origin % African-American *Very small sample (12); treat as qualitative only Prior year data provided for ease of comparison 23

24 ©TNS 2012 Visitor demographics CY 2009 Demographics All Travelers Texas Visitors Houston Visitors Houston Visitor & Houston Resident Houston Visitor & DFW/Austin/San Antonio Resident Houston Visitor & NY/Chicago/DC Resident* Average Age Average Hhld Income$67,800$67,400$67,200$53,300$69,900$80,900 % Male39%41%39%44%39%25% % Married Household Composition % One Person22%19%24%31%20%37% % Two People % Three or More Ethnicity % Caucasian85%86%79%80%73%82% % Spanish Origin % African-American *Very small sample; treat as qualitative only 2009 data provided for ease of comparison Panel: Age, Income, Children, Ethnicity. (Household Level – demo wtd) 24

25 ©TNS 2012 Visitor age distribution Houston consistently draws slightly fewer older visitors than other destinations. Age of Visitor QD. How old are you... (Respondent Level, demo weighted) CY 2010 CY 2009 CY 2011 US TravelersTexas VisitorsHouston VisitorsHouston Visitor & Houston Resident Houston Visitor & DFW/San Antonio/Austin Resident Houston Visitor & NY/Chicago/DC Resident* *Very small sample (12 in CY 2011); treat as qualitative only 25

26 ©TNS 2012 Trip planning: timing Logical Patterns Occur for Trip Planning:  With fewer travel considerations (such as lodging or number of meals), day-trip visitors to Houston as well as Houston residents have the freedom to be much more spontaneous – much more likely to consider and decide within two weeks of the trip than others  Overnight leisure travelers take more time to plan a trip than overnight business travelers. Q4i. Please indicate how far in advance you considered traveling to... // Decided to visit... (State Level-demo wtd) CY 2011 Trip Planning (Time Before Visit) All US Travelers Houston Visitors Total Houston Visitors Ls Overnight Houston Visitors Ls Day Trip Houston Visitors Bz Overnight Houston Visitors & Houston Residents Houston Visitor & DFW/Austin/ San Antonio Resident Houston Visitor & NY/Chicago/D C Resident* Considered Within Two Weeks 33% 24%52%30%58%23%- 2 – 4 Weeks – 3 Months Months Decided Within Two Weeks 41%43%37%63%34%69%36%- 2 – 4 Weeks – 3 Months Months * Very small sample; treat as qualitative only 26

27 ©TNS 2012 Trip planning: timing Q4i. Please indicate how far in advance you considered traveling to... // Decided to visit... (State Level-demo wtd) CY 2010 Trip Planning (Time Before Visit) All Travelers Houston Visitors Total Houston Visitors Ls Overnight Houston Visitors Ls Day Trip Houston Visitors Bz Overnight Houston Visitors & Houston Residents Houston Visitor & DFW/Austin/ San Antonio Resident Houston Visitor & NY/Chicago/DC Resident* Considered Within Two Weeks 32%34%23%55%38%60%30%9% 2 – 4 Weeks – 3 Months Months Decided Within Two Weeks 40%43%34%63%42%67%40%9% 2 – 4 Weeks – 3 Months Months * Very small sample; treat as qualitative only Prior year data provided for ease of comparison 27

28 ©TNS 2012 Trip planning: timing Q4i. Please indicate how far in advance you considered traveling to... // Decided to visit... (State Level-demo wtd) CY 2009 Trip Planning (Time Before Visit) All Travelers Houston Visitors Total Houston Visitors Ls Overnight Houston Visitors Ls Day Trip Houston Visitors Bz Overnight Houston Visitors & Houston Residents Houston Visitor & DFW/Austin/ San Antonio Resident Houston Visitor & NY/Chicago/DC Resident* Considered Within Two Weeks 32%34%24%68%35%54%35%27% 2 – 4 Weeks – 3 Months Months Decided Within Two Weeks 41%42%33%74%42%62%44%27% 2 – 4 Weeks – 3 Months Months * Very small sample; treat as qualitative only 2009 data provided for ease of comparison 28

29 ©TNS 2012 Trip Planning Sources: Generally similar to overall US travelers, Houston visitors are less likely to rely on offline sources of information. Trip planning: sources of information Information Sources to Plan a Trip Ranked by All Sources (4%+) Q4j. What sources did you use in planning your trip to... (State Level – demo wtd) 29

30 ©TNS 2012 Trip booking Trip Booking Methods: Travelers, including Houston visitors, place greater emphasis on online than offline channels, especially travel provider websites. Method Used to Book Trip Components Ranked by All Sources (5%+) Q4k. Please indicate the method(s) you used to book your trip... (State Level – demo wtd) 30

31 ©TNS 2012 Trip characteristics: purpose & transportation Most Visitors Come to Houston to Play Houston attracts fewer leisure visitors than average (68% vs. 79% all US travelers), with more of them there primarily to visit friends/relatives (49% vs. 42%) and fewer for entertainment or recreation than a year ago. Q1b: Which was the primary purpose of trip? Q2b: Which was the primary mode of transportation? (Trip Level – demo wtd) CY 2011 All Travelers Houston Visitors Total Houston Visitors Ls Overnight Houston Visitors Ls Day Trip Houston Visitors Bz Overnight*\ Houston Visitors & Houston Residents Houston Visitor & DFW/Austin/ San Antonio Resident Houston Visitor & NY/Chi/DC Resident* PRIMARY TRIP PURPOSE NET Leisure/Personal 79%68%100% - 70%75%47% Visit Friends/ Relatives Entertainment/Sightsee Outdoor Recreation NET Business Personal Bs/Other PRIMARY MODE % Own Auto/Truck 74%71%75%92%41%92%83%17% % Air Travel % Rental Car % Other * Very small sample; treat as qualitative only 31

32 ©TNS 2012 Trip characteristics: purpose & transportation Q1b: Which was the primary purpose of trip? Q2b: Which was the primary mode of transportation? (Trip Level – demo wtd) CY 2010 All Travelers Houston Visitors Total Houston Visitors Ls Overnight Houston Visitors Ls Day Trip Houston Visitors Bz Overnight Houston Visitors & Houston Residents Houston Visitor & DFW/Austin/ San Antonio Resident Houston Visitor & NY/Chi/DC Resident* PRIMARY TRIP PURPOSE NET Leisure/Personal79%71%100% --75%73%52% Visit Friends/ Relatives Entertainment/Sightsee Outdoor Recreation NET Business Personal Bs/Other PRIMARY MODE % Own Auto/Truck72%67%72%89%28%89%86%15% % Air Travel % Rental Car % Other * Very small sample; treat as qualitative only Prior year data provided for ease of comparison 32

33 ©TNS 2012 Trip characteristics: purpose & transportation Q1b: Which was the primary purpose of trip? Q2b: Which was the primary mode of transportation? (Trip Level – demo wtd) CY 2009 All Travelers Houston Visitors Total Houston Visitors Ls Overnight Houston Visitors Ls Day Trip Houston Visitors Bz Overnight Houston Visitors & Houston Residents Houston Visitor & DFW/Austin/San Antonio Resident Houston Visitor & NY/Chicago/ DC Resident* PRIMARY TRIP PURPOSE NET Leisure/Personal79%73%100% --77%76%37% Visit Friends/Relatives Entertainment/Sightsee Outdoor Recreation NET Business %61656 Personal Bs/Other PRIMARY MODE % Own Auto/Truck71%65% 97%27%90%87%11% % Air Travel % Rental Car % Other * Very small sample; treat as qualitative only 2009 data provided for ease of comparison 33

34 ©TNS 2012 Most Trips Include an Overnight Stay: Houston continues to draw a larger share overnight visitors than other US or Texas visitors. Trip characteristics: day/overnight DAY/OVERNIGHT TRIPS % of Trips to Area Base: Trips to Houston; Texas; Total US Q4e. Please specify which visits included at least one overnight stay... (State/Area Level-demo wtd) CY 2011 CY 2009 CY

35 ©TNS 2012 Trip characteristics: lodging and length of stay Q4f: Please specify the number of nights stayed at each listed accommodation. (State Level – demo wtd) LODGING All Travelers Houston Visitors Total Houston Visitors Ls Overnight Houston Visitors Ls Day Trip Houston Visitors Bz Overnight Houston Visitors & Houston Residents Houston Visitor & DFW/Austin/San Antonio Resident Houston Visitor & NY/Chicago/DC Resident* CY 2011 AVG # NIGHTS (if any) Private Home Hotel/Motel All Other CY 2010 AVG # NIGHTS (if any) Private Home Hotel/Motel All Other CY 2009 AVG # NIGHTS (if any) Private Home Hotel/Motel All Other ** Very small sample; treat as qualitative only Most Visitors Spend a Few Days in Houston:  Business travelers stay in hotels (73% of nights) at three times the rate of leisure travelers (23%)  Houston residents have the shortest stays (2.7 nights) – many probably opting for short getaways  Reversing last year’s dip, length of stay climbs for overall Houston visitors. 35

36 ©TNS 2012 Trip characteristics: travel party Travel companions vary by purpose of the trip:  Over a third of Houston’s leisure visitors travel with children (33%)  Most arrive in pairs, both day (38%) and overnight (40%)  Business travelers usually travel solo (64%, not shown), seldom with children (3%). Q3a/b: Please indicate number of travel party members (including yourself) under 18 and 18+. (Trip Level-demo wtd) Trip Characteristics (Trip Level) All US Travelers Houston Visitors Total Houston Ls Visitors Houston Ls Visitors – Overnight Houston Ls Visitors – Day Trip Houston Bz Visitors – Total CY 2011 AVERAGE # IN TRAVEL PARTY (Q3a) % Travel in Pairs39%36%40% 38%21% % Traveling with Children Avg. # of Children on Trip (if any) Average # in Travel Party in Household CY 2010 AVERAGE # IN TRAVEL PARTY (Q3a) % Travel in Pairs38%34%37% 38%14% % Traveling with Children Avg. # of Children on Trip (if any) Average # in Travel Party in Household CY 2009 AVERAGE # IN TRAVEL PARTY (Q3a) % Travel in Pairs38%35%38%37%41%15% % Traveling with Children Avg. # of Children on Trip (if any) Average # in Travel Party in Household

37 ©TNS 2012 Trip characteristics: vacation activities/attractions Activities Participated/Attractions Visited % Participated/Visited – Ranked by Houston Visitors (Activities with 2% or fewer for Houston not shown) Q4h. When you visited (state) during trip/month, please check all of the following activities did/attractions visited. (State Level-demo wtd) Top Vacation Activities/Attractions: Compared to total US travelers, Houston visitors more often visit for social engagements -- visiting relatives and friends capture two of the top three spots. Urban highlights such as shopping, fine dining, and urban sightseeing round out the most popular activities while more outdoorsy options (rural sightseeing, beaches, and State/National Park) lag the national average. 37

38 ©TNS 2012 Trip characteristics: expenditures by type of travel Note: Transportation includes parking/tolls. Food includes food/beverage/dining/groceries. Entertainment includes gaming. Other includes amenities/other. Average Spending in Houston by Trip Type Total Spending by Travel Party (Total Spending, including 0) Total Visitors Q4g. Please indicate the total dollar amount spent by your travel party (all) in Texas (Houston) for... (State Level-demo wtd) Leisure Total Business Total Leisure Overnight Leisure Day Business Overnight Spending CY 2009CY 2010 $492$432 $398$368 $821$713 $448$435 $196$110 $932$843 Value of Visitors by Type of Trip:  Overnight LEISURE visitors spend 2½ times as much as day-trip visitors ($498 vs. $205)  Usually staying in hotels, business travelers spend much more than leisure visitors ($756 vs. $428)  Recovering from last year’s dip, all Houston visitor groups spend more than last year. 38

39 ©TNS 2012 Destinations: competitive states Southern State Destinations Compete with Houston:  Houston visitors who live in Texas usually choose other southern or western states for additional vacation travel; conversely, Houston visitors who live in New York, Chicago, or Washington DC tend to travel further North or to Florida. Other States Visited/Planned by Houston Visitors (Key Competitors) % Visiting State/DMA Past Three Years (Ranking), Past Year, Planned Next Two Years Top States: DFW/Austin/San Antonio Residents Base: Visited Houston Top States: NY/Chicago/DC Residents* Base: Visited Houston Q7a: Please indicate US states visited for leisure in past three years. Q7b. Please indicate states visited within the past 12 months. Q7c: Which US states plan to visit within the next two years for leisure? (Household Level) * Caution: Very small base 39

40 ©TNS 2012 Destinations: competitive cities Other Texas Cities Attract Houston Visitors:  Houston visitors within Texas often visit other Texas destinations (Dallas/Ft. Worth and San Antonio). Other Areas Visited/Planned by Houston Visitors (Key Competitors) % Visiting State/DMA Past Three Years (Ranking), Past Year, Planned Next Two Years Q8a: Please indicate US cities visited for leisure in past three years. Q8b. Please indicate cities visited within the past 12 months (too few to show on NY/Chicago/DC chart) Q8c: Which US cities plan to visit within the next two years for leisure? (Household Level) Top Cities: DFW/Austin/San Antonio Residents Base: Visited Houston Top Cities: NY/Chicago/DC Residents* Base: Visited Houston * Caution: Very small base 40

41 ©TNS 2012 Satisfaction: Houston by residence Overall Satisfaction with Houston:  Houston satisfies more than four out of five (85%) visitors, similar to the prior two years  In total, few visitors (2% - 4%) express displeasure with Houston, but NY/Chicago/DC residents seem stingier with higher levels of praise (extremely/very satisfied), especially in CY Satisfaction with Houston Visit By Group (Base) Q4l: Using a scale of 1-5 (5=extremely satisfied), please indicate satisfaction with Houston. (State Level-demo wtd.) SomewhatNot PleasedVeryExtremely * Very small sample; treat as qualitative only Note: Not pleased includes Not At All and Not Very Pleased NET Top Two 85% 87% 75% 84% 87% 69% 86% 88% 86% Total Houston Visitors DFW/Austin/San Antonio Residents NY/Chicago/DC Residents* Total Houston Visitors DFW/Austin/San Antonio Residents NY/Chicago/DC Residents* Total Houston Visitors DFW/Austin/San Antonio Residents NY/Chicago/DC Residents* CY 2011 CY 2009 CY

42 Appendix IIa. Opinions About Houston and Competitors from Follow-up Survey

43 ©TNS 2012 Demographics Characteristics vary slightly by residence: Non-Texas residents continue to report higher income and education levels than Texas residents Houston residents continue to have a slightly higher share of African- Americans while slightly more non- Houston Texas residents claim Spanish heritage, especially in 2009 and QA. What is your age? // QB. Are you... (male/female) // Panel: Income, Education, Marital Status, Ethnicity Survey Average Age Average Hhld Income$67,800$71,200$72,800$64,900$77,000$66,800 % Male34% 32%34%35%34% % Married % College Grads+ (Males) Ethnicity % Caucasian86%81%82%87%84%74% % Spanish Origin % African-American Survey Average Age Average Hhld Income $68,300$73,000$72,600$63,100$81,700$72,800 % Male 34%38%34%33%38%35% % Married % College Grads+ (Males) Ethnicity % Caucasian % Spanish Origin % African-American Survey Demographics All Travelers Past Yr. O/N Leisure Visitors Houston Residents Other Texas Residents Non-Texas Residents Website Visitor Average Age Average Hhld Income $72,258$77,111$73,077$68,910$83,100$69,238 % Male 34%38%34%33%36%37% % Married % College Grads+ (Males) Ethnicity % Caucasian 87%84%85%89%83%77% % Spanish Origin % African-American

44 ©TNS 2012 Residence City of residency:  The majority of respondents (70%) live in one of the major Texas DMAs, similar to last year  More closely aligned with 2010 than 2011, more than a third live in Houston (38%)  The proportion outside of Texas remains relatively stable. City of residence comes from TNS panel Survey 2011 Survey Houston DFW Austin San Antonio New York/ Chicago/ DC Other 2012 Survey 44

45 ©TNS 2012 Attribute importance Important attributes when choosing a destination: Houston overnight leisure visitors rank destination attributes similar to other travelers; however:  They give an edge to cosmopolitan features (culture/performing arts, diversity, and nightlife)  Family/roots there also ranks higher for Houston overnight leisure visitors than others  Explore/Sightsee by car posts the largest jump from a year ago. Attribute Importance (% Top 2 Box) Ranked by Total Q1a/b. Abridged: Using a scale of 1 (not at all important) to 5 (extremely important) please rate the importance of each of the following attributes when selecting a destination. *PY O/N Leisure HV = Past Year Overnight Leisure Houston Visitor 45

46 ©TNS 2012 Attribute importance Important attributes when choosing a destination: Regardless of geography, travelers tend to agree on the important aspects of a travel destination. Attribute Importance (% Top 2 Box) Ranked by Total Q1a/b. Abridged: Using a scale of 1 (not at all important) to 5 (extremely important) please rate the importance of each of the following attributes when selecting a destination. 46

47 ©TNS 2012 Preference for Houston Ranked by Total Importance (top 2 box) Q2a/b. For each of the attributes mentioned below, please select the destinations you prefer... % selecting each city. Houston tends to place equal to or slightly above last year  Houston receives the highest marks on variety of dining options, lots to see/do, easy accessibility, and something for everyone  Travelers also recognize Houston for its culture/ performing arts and cultural diversity  The weakest scores occur for: the preferred place for overnight leisure vacations, friendliness to alternative lifestyles, and hip/fashionable. Good Value for Money (87%) Friendly/Welcoming (82%) Reasonable Hotel/Meal Costs (82%) Explore/Sight-see by Car (82%) Good Service (81%) Lots to See/Do (79%) Whether/Climate (77%) Easily Accessible (77%) Variety of Dining Options (73%) Something for Everyone (65%) Experience History/Culture (62%) Accurate Website (55%) Prefer for O/N Leisure (51%) Good for Family/Children (45%) Culture/Performing Arts (43%) Easy to Use Website (41%) Culturally Diverse (37%) Friends/Relatives Recommend (36%) Good Reviews on Travel Websites (36%) Good Nightlife/Entertainment (33%) Family/Roots There (29%) Accessible for Disabled (26%) Friendly to Alternate Lifestyles (24%) Hip/Fashionable (19%) 47

48 ©TNS 2012 Preference for each Texas city Ranked by Total Importance (top 2 box) Q2a/b. For each of the attributes mentioned below, please select the destinations you prefer... % selecting each city. San Antonio excels on most attributes, including the most important ones, while travelers generally view Houston as comparable to other major Texas cities:  Travelers rate Houston as the leader among these five cities on variety of dining options, cultural/performing arts, family/roots there, and accessibility for disabled  Houston never ranks last. Good Value for Money (87%) Friendly/Welcoming (82%) Reasonable Hotel/Meal Costs (82%) Explore/Sight-see by Car (82%) Good Service (81%) Lots to See/Do (79%) Whether/Climate (77%) Easily Accessible (77%) Variety of Dining Options (73%) Something for Everyone (65%) Experience History/Culture (62%) Accurate Website (55%) Prefer for O/N Leisure (51%) Good for Family/Children (45%) Culture/Performing Arts (43%) Easy to Use Website (41%) Culturally Diverse (37%) Friends/Relatives Recommend (36%) Good Reviews on Travel Websites (36%) Good Nightlife/Entertainment (33%) Family/Roots There (29%) Accessible for Disabled (26%) Friendly to Alternate Lifestyles (24%) Hip/Fashionable (19%) 48

49 ©TNS 2012 Preference for Houston Ranked by Total Importance (top 2 box) Q2a/b. For each of the attributes mentioned below, please select the destinations you prefer... % selecting each city. As expected, since a visit indicates strong interest almost by definition, those who visited Houston overnight for leisure in the past year tend to rank Houston very high on most attributes; Houston residents usually join them in the accolades:  In contrast, and consistent with results from last year, Non- Houston Texas residents tend to rank Houston lower than other groups  Houston residents make good advocates – consistently preferring Houston, especially for dining, accessibility, a place with something for everyone, friendly/welcoming, culture and performing arts, cultural diversity, and as a place good for family/children. Good Value for Money (87%) Friendly/Welcoming (82%) Reasonable Hotel/Meal Costs (82%) Explore/Sight-see by Car (82%) Good Service (81%) Lots to See/Do (79%) Whether/Climate (77%) Easily Accessible (77%) Variety of Dining Options (73%) Something for Everyone (65%) Experience History/Culture (62%) Accurate Website (55%) Prefer for O/N Leisure (51%) Good for Family/Children (45%) Culture/Performing Arts (43%) Easy to Use Website (41%) Culturally Diverse (37%) Friends/Relatives Recommend (36%) Good Reviews on Travel Websites (36%) Good Nightlife/Entertainment (33%) Family/Roots There (29%) Accessible for Disabled (26%) Friendly to Alternate Lifestyles (24%) Hip/Fashionable (19%) 49

50 ©TNS 2012 Cities “good to visit” for non-resident visitors Evaluating city of residence: A destination’s own residents can be its best ambassadors. Houston’s populace knows the city best, often scoring Houston above the average of other cities by their residents:  Houston residents see their city as an active urban playground with strikingly above average scores for cultural diversity, something for everyone, shopping, lots to see/do, culture/ performing arts, nightlife/entertainment, and hip/fashionable.  In contrast, Houston residents would not be as quick to recommend the city for a relaxing vacation or weather/climate. Attribute Description of City by Residents (% Top 2 Box) Ranked by Houston Residents Q3. Now, please think about the city where you live. Please rate how well each statement describes your city as a leisure destination for those who do not live there. 50

51 ©TNS 2012 Houston “good to visit” trends Compared to prior years, a few trends appear:  Houston residents see their city as increasingly family friendly and accessible for the disabled  Although only a minor gain, both cost attributes improve (good value for the money and reasonable costs of hotels/meals)  No attribute trends steadily downward. Attribute Description of Houston (% Top 2 Box) Ranked by Houston Residents Q3. Now, please think about the city where you live. Please rate how well each statement describes your city as a leisure destination for those who do not live there. 51

52 ©TNS 2012 Quality of cities as destinations Q4. Now, we would like you to rate each of the listed cities, whether or not you live there or have visited them, on a 10-point scale (10=perfect; 1=terrible). Taking into account everything you look for in a leisure destination, how would you rate each city? Similar to attribute rankings, travelers generally rate San Antonio higher than other cities when thinking of “everything you look for in a leisure destination”:  Houston and Dallas trail the other three cities  Residents of Texas cities outside Houston rate Houston lower than other groups (46%). Perfect Good Average Poor Opinion of Each City Opinion of Houston NET Perfect + Good: 56% 70%78%65%56%66% 46%62% 52

53 ©TNS 2012 Quality of cities as destinations - trends Q4. Now, we would like you to rate each of the listed cities, whether or not you live there or have visited them, on a 10-point scale (10=perfect; 1=terrible). Taking into account everything you look for in a leisure destination, how would you rate each city? Compared to last year, when thinking of “everything that is wanted in a leisure destination,” travelers:  Continue to praise San Antonio above other cities  Rate Houston more strongly than in the past and now matches Dallas  Texans outside of Houston find the greatest fault with Houston (only 46% perfect/good), similar to prior years. Opinion of Each City (Top Scores: Perfect/Good) Opinion of Houston (Top Scores) 53

54 ©TNS 2012 Competitive cities visited Competitors: In a pattern similar to last year, Houston visitors show interest in these other cities:  San Antonio attracts many, reigning as the most popular (after Houston) among Houston residents  Dallas-Fort Worth claims the lead for non-Houston Texas residents and non-Texans who visit other Texas cities besides Houston. Cities Visited Ranked by Total Q5. Which of the following cities have you visited in the past 5 years?

55 ©TNS 2012 Value for the money - cities as destinations Q6. Abridged: On a 10-point scale (10=excellent value; 1=terrible value) overall, how would you rate the value for the money of each city? Overall, visitors view Texas cities as destinations with good value for the money:  San Antonio takes the lead in the value for the money image  Houston, Dallas, Austin, and New Orleans all vie for second, but Dallas trails in share of very high (9/10) ratings  Non-Houston Texans assign lower ratings to Houston than other segments. Each City Houston 9 – 10 Ratings NET Excellent + Good: 63%56%67%75%62%63%67%66%56%68% 55

56 ©TNS 2012 Value for the money - cities as destinations Q6. Abridged: On a 10-point scale (10=excellent value; 1=terrible value) overall, how would you rate the value for the money of each city? Compared to last year:  Cities’ value for the money image remains fairly stable, although New Orleans steadily improves while Dallas slips. Each City (Top Scores: Excellent/Good) Houston (Top Scores) 56

57 ©TNS 2012 Experience in each destination city Q7. Abridged: On a 10-point scale (10=excellent value; 1=terrible value) overall, how would you rate the experience you had in each city? San Antonio claims the lead as the city with the best overall experience for visitors:  Houston and Dallas trail other cities  Houston’s past-year overnight visitors, and non-Texans praise Houston more highly. Each City Houston 9 – 10 Ratings NET Excellent + Good: 72%70%83%87%80%72%79%72%71%75% 57

58 ©TNS 2012 Experience in each destination city Q7. Abridged: On a 10-point scale (10=excellent value; 1=terrible value) overall, how would you rate the experience you had in each city? Compared to last year:  Overall experience slightly improves for Houston and Austin  Non-Houston Texas residents soften their criticism of Houston. Each City (Top Scores: Excellent/Good) Houston (Top Scores) 58

59 ©TNS 2012 Likely to return to destination city Q8. Abridged: On a 10-point scale (10=very likely; 1=not at all likely), please indicate how likely you are to return to each city for an overnight, leisure trip? Visitors’ expected repeat visitation varies substantially by city:  San Antonio and Austin visitors have the highest expectations to return  Houston closely competes with Dallas and New Orleans  Non-Houston Texans show the lowest interest in returning to Houston. Each City Houston 9 – 10 Ratings NET Very + Probably 71%70%80%81%74%71%81%72%67%76% 59

60 ©TNS 2012 Likely to return to destination city Q8. Abridged: On a 10-point scale (10=very likely; 1=not at all likely), please indicate how likely you are to return to each city for an overnight, leisure trip? Compared to last year, most cities lure about the same level of expected repeaters. Each City (Top Scores: Very/Probably) Houston (Top Scores) 60

61 ©TNS 2012 Likely to recommend city as destination By city:  Visitors to San Antonio and Austin would be most likely to recommend the city to friends and family  Houston ranks behind all competitors, including Dallas  Recent leisure visitors and Houston residents most often recommend the city to others. Each City Houston Q9. Abridged: On a 10-point scale (10=very likely; 1=not at all likely), please indicate how likely you are to recommend traveling to each city to friends/family. 9 – 10 Ratings NET Very + Probably 65%68%81%83%80%65%73%68%61%65% 61

62 ©TNS 2012 Likely to recommend city as destination Recommendations hover near prior year levels, except for a continuing improvement for New Orleans. Each City (Top Scores: Very/Probably) Houston (Top Scores) Q9. Abridged: On a 10-point scale (10=very likely; 1=not at all likely), please indicate how likely you are to recommend traveling to each city to friends/family. 62

63 ©TNS 2012 NET Top Four Ratings: %63%72%71%65% % 51% 60% 61% 69% 68% 69% 70% 64% 65% NET Top Two Ratings: %25%36%51%40% % 22% 35% 33% 47% 49% 40% Summary of opinions/ratings about Houston Over half (61%- 72%) of Houston visitors assign high ratings on each measure:  Houston consistently exceeds last year with the same two measures, positive experience in Houston (72%) and likelihood to return (71%), leading all others  Overall opinion of Houston climbs notably in Q4. Now, we would like you to rate each of the listed cities, whether or not you live there or have visited them, on a 10-point scale (10=perfect; 1=terrible). Taking into account everything you look for in a leisure destination, how would you rate each city? Q6. Abridged: On a 10-point scale (10=excellent; 1=terrible) overall, how would you rate the value for the money of each city? Q7. Abridged: On a 10-point scale (10=excellent; 1=terrible) overall, how would you rate the experience you had in each city? Q8. Abridged: On a 10-point scale (10=very; 1=not at all), how likely you are to return to each city for an overnight, leisure trip? Q9. Abridged: On a 10-point scale (10=very; 1=not at all), how likely you are to recommend traveling to each city to friends/family. Houston (Visited in Past 5 Years) 9 – 10 Ratings

64 ©TNS 2012 Next future visit to city Houston overtakes Dallas as a city to visit within the next year, with three-quarters of recent visitors expecting to return. Each City Houston Q10. Please indicate the next time you plan to visit each of the following cities? < 6 Months 6 Mos. – 1 Year 1 – 2 Years Over 2 Years No Plans to Visit NET Within a Year: %40%37%36%13%51%76%70%35%61% %49%43% 14%44%75%78%31%50% %46%40%42%15%54%76%82%37%63% 64

65 ©TNS 2012 Next future visit to city Compared to the last year, Houston improves in interest, aided by a gain among non-Houston residents. Each City (Plan to Visit Within a Year) Houston (Plan to Visit Within a Year) Q10. Please indicate the next time you plan to visit each of the following cities? 65

66 Appendix IIb. Media Choices From Follow-up Survey

67 ©TNS 2012 Media used Q38. How often would you say you do each of these activities? Choosing the right media affects the success of any ad campaign:  TV: Nearly universal – almost everyone (98%) watches television – and four out of five watch it daily  Radio: Two-thirds (62%) listen to the radio at least 4 times per week, likely many listen while driving  Newspapers: Few (31%) read a daily newspaper, and it sinks further among the target (15%) group  Magazines: Not designed for daily use, fewer than half read magazines weekly, the proportion rises among past year overnight Houston leisure visitor (54%)  Internet: Most connect for reasons other than Social Media/YouTube to the Internet, usually daily  Social Media: Two in five use social media, especially the Target group (51%)  YouTube: Few watch it daily (5%, not shown), but most watch it occasionally (65%; 78% Target; 61% non-Target). Media Consumption (n=796) HV* = Houston Visitor 67 Never 2%0%2%1%2%10%6% 5%10%24%21%17%25%22%18%11%9%14%16%1%0%1%2%1% 29% na 26% 21% 30% 35% na 31% 22% 39%

68 ©TNS 2012 Viewing Habits  Regardless of medium, people more likely watch TV and online media in the evening (from 6 – 10 pm)  Television (and Cable) accounts for most viewing choices  However, about one in four (23% total; 25% past year Houston overnight leisure visitor) watches YouTube in the evening  Watching Broadcasts online lags other choices. Timing for watching media Total Past Year Houston Overnight Leisure Visitor Q39. When do you watch TV or Online Broadcasts? 68

69 ©TNS 2012 Viewing choices Q40. What do you watch? Various types of shows have similar appeal except that the Target visitor place much higher preference on comedies (the most-selected choice) than non-target visitors (comedies rank fifth). Viewing Choices (n=794) HV* = Houston Visitor 69

70 Appendix IIc. General Advertising Awareness From Follow-up Survey

71 ©TNS 2012 City advertising awareness (unaided) Q11. In the past 3 months, for which of the following cities have you seen advertising? Advertising plays an important role in building interest in destination selection:  All travelers: Not quite half (42%) of all travelers recall advertising for at least one of the featured cities (Houston, Dallas/Ft. Worth, Austin, San Antonio, or New Orleans), with San Antonio (26%) and New Orleans (28%) generating, by far, the greatest recall  Houston ranks third (15%), remaining relatively stable with last year while all competitors dip. Any Ad Awareness (n=796) Note: in 2009 and 2010, Atlanta and Denver were included, so seven cities could have been noticed rather than just these five 71

72 ©TNS 2012 Houston advertising awareness (unaided) Q11. In the past 3 months, for which of the following cities have you seen advertising? Advertising can directly influence who visits a destination and when:  Past year overnight leisure visitors to Houston are more likely to recall advertising for Houston, demonstrating a relationship between advertising exposure and visitation  The closer a traveler lives to Houston the more likely they are to be aware of advertising – Houston residents recall advertising at almost twice the rate of non-Texans  The Target group notices less advertising for Houston than the non-Target group – but this measure includes all Houston advertising, not just that placed by the Greater Houston CVB. Any Ad Awareness of Houston (n=796) HV* = Houston Visitor 72

73 ©TNS 2012 City advertising awareness by media - unaided Advertising recall varies by medium:  Electronic Media: Television leads as a source of ad awareness, especially for New Orleans (74%)  Houston steadily gains in TV and recall  Print Media: Houston lags most of these competitive destinations for magazine awareness but leads in newspapers. Each City (2012 unless labeled otherwise) ELECTRONIC PRINT Q12. Abridged: For each of the cities, please indicate what type of media you recall seeing/hearing advertising. 73

74 ©TNS 2012 Houston advertising awareness by media (unaided) Advertising recall within groups stays fairly consistent with a few exceptions:  Electronic Media: TV advertising generates the greatest recall – especially among Texas residents (Houston or other Texas) and the Target group  Print Media: Those most likely to recall Magazine ads include past visitors and non-Texas residents; newspapers work best among Houston residents. Houston ELECTRONIC PRINT Q12. Abridged: For each of the cities, please indicate what type of media you recall seeing/hearing advertising. * Very small sample; treat as qualitative only HV* = Houston Visitor 74

75 ©TNS 2012 General Advertising – By City Travelers may positively react to destination advertising in one of three listed ways: be motivated to seek more information, convinced to book a trip, or encouraged to stay longer/visit additional attractions:  In overall positive impact, Austin (36%) leads while Houston (21%) and New Orleans (19%) trail  All ads are most likely to inspire gathering of more information, especially Austin ads, but San Antonio’s advertising convinces more viewers to visit (10%)  Ads do not affect everyone positively; potential visitors may decide not to visit (1% for Houston, not shown) or simply believe that ads do not influence them at all (79%, similar to other TNS studies). Each City (2012 unless labeled otherwise) Perceived impact of (unaided) advertising – each city Q13. Abridged: How has the advertising you have seen affected your leisure travel plans? 75

76 ©TNS 2012 General Advertising – By Group: Houston reaps the largest benefits from advertising among:  Past year overnight leisure visitors (25%)  Target group (25%). (Note: too few to cite non-Texas residents) Perceived impact of (unaided) Houston advertising Houston Q13. Abridged: How has the advertising you have seen affected your leisure travel plans? * Very small sample; treat as qualitative only HV* = Houston Visitor 76

77 Appendix IId. Specific GHCVB Ad Awareness From Follow-up Survey

78 ©TNS 2012 “My Houston” print ad “My Houston” Spread 78

79 ©TNS 2012 Houston print advertising: “My Houston” Spread Q27. Please indicate if you have seen this ad campaign before. Q28a. Based on this print campaign, how has your impression of Houston changed? Much more positive (5) to much more negative (1) Q28b. Overall, how much did you like this campaign? Like it very much (5) to dislike very much (1) Q28c. Based on this print campaign, how likely are you to take an overnight vacation or pleasure trip to Houston in the future? (Extremely (5) to not at all likely (1). More travelers recall and praise the Houston CVB print ad than last year:  Aided awareness places above last year (20% from 12%), especially residents and recent visitors  The likeability of the ad notably exceeds last year, with a positive gain also appearing in viewers’ impression of Houston. Opinion Summary HV* = Houston Visitor 79 Top Rating Second Neutral Bottom 2 Ratings NET Top Two Ratings 2012:17%41%15% 2011:13%28%15% 2010:15%35%21% Awareness “My Houston” Spread Print Campaign (2012 unless labeled otherwise)

80 ©TNS 2012 Impression of “My Houston” spread print campaign Those most familiar with the city tend to be most influenced by the advertising:  The print ads most improve the impression of Houston for past year overnight leisure visitors (24%)  Those in the Target group (25%) respond more positively than the Non-Target group  Non-Houston residents (Texans or not) are the least affected by the ads (88% neutral). Much More Positive Somewhat More Neutral More Negative Reaction to “My Houston” Print Campaign - Impression Q28a. Based on this print campaign, how has your impression of Houston changed? Much more positive (5) to much more negative (1). HV* = Houston Visitor 80 NET Positive: 2012:na 17%24%18% 9%25%18% 2011:na13%na18%19%11% na 2010:15%na 20%16%15%12%na

81 ©TNS 2012 Likeability of “My Houston” spread print campaign Travelers who have visited or live in Houston find the ads the most likable:  The Target group assigns the highest likeability of all – significantly stronger than the Non-Target group  Houston residents and past year overnight leisure visitors rate likeability higher than others. Like Very Much Somewhat Neutral Dislike Ads Reaction to “My Houston” Print Campaign - Likeability Q28b. Overall, how much did you like this campaign? Like it very much (5) to dislike very much (1). HV* = Houston Visitor 81 NET Positive: 2012:na 41%52%48%36%39%54%43% 2011:na28%na35%36%25%28%na 2010:35%na 43%37%34%36%na

82 ©TNS 2012 “My Houston” spread impact on future Houston vacations Overall, the print ads do not strongly influence future visitation for most travelers:  Only one in seven (15%) believes that the ads will encourage them to visit Houston, matching last year  As with other ad measures, past year overnight leisure visitors to Houston continue to be the most influenced by print advertising  The Target group reacts more positively than the Non-Target group. Extremely Likely Very Somewhat Not Likely Reaction to “My Houston” Print Campaign – Influence on Future Vacation Q28c. Based on this print campaign, how likely are you to take an overnight vacation or pleasure trip to Houston in the future? (Extremely (5) to not at all likely (1). HV* = Houston Visitor 82 NET Positive: 2012:na 15%28%16%12%20%21%17% 2011:na15%na29%24%12%16%na 2010:21%na 37%24%16%32%na

83 ©TNS 2012 “Houston is” print ads Artsy Ballerina Artsy Menil Savvy Hermann Park Funky Art Car Diverse Downtown Savvy Space 83

84 ©TNS 2012 “Houston is” print ads continued 84 Strip Unique HMNS Unique Rodeo Tasty Hugo Tasty Monica

85 ©TNS 2012 Opinions/reaction to “Houston is” print campaign Overall, viewers of the ad react quite positively to the campaign:  Two-thirds (64%) find the ads believable  Over half (55%) like the ads – compared to 41% of the current “My Houston” campaign  More than one in five (22%) feel the ads would motivate them to visit Houston in the future (vs. 15% in the “My Houston” spread). Top Rating Second Neutral Bottom 2 Ratings Summary of Opinion/Reaction to “Houston is” Print Campaign Base: All (796) Q28d. Based on this print campaign, how believable do you find this campaign? Extremely believable (5) to not at all (1) Q28e. Overall, how much did you like this campaign? Like it very much (5) to dislike very much (1) Q28g. Based on this print campaign, how likely are you to take an overnight vacation or pleasure trip to Houston in the future? (extremely (5) to not at all likely (1). NET Positive:64%55%22% 85

86 ©TNS 2012 Believability of “Houston is” print campaign With generally strong believability, non-Texas residents, past year overnight leisure visitors, and the Target group react most positively. Much More Positive Somewhat More Neutral More Negative Reaction to “Houston Is” Print Campaign - Believability NET Positive: 2012:64%74%65%59%78% 72%66% Q28d. Based on this print campaign, how believable do you find this campaign? Extremely believable (5) to not at all (1). HV* = Houston Visitor 86

87 ©TNS 2012 Likeability of “Houston is” print campaign Like Very Much Somewhat Neutral Dislike Ads Reaction to “Houston Is” Print Campaign - Likeability Q28e. Overall, how much did you like this campaign? Like it very much (5) to dislike very much (1). HV* = Houston Visitor 87 NET Positive: 2012:55%68%58%51%64% 68% 56% Outperforming the “My Houston” print campaign (41% positive), past year overnight leisure visitors and the Target group react most positively, with non-Texas residents not far behind.

88 ©TNS 2012 “Houston is” impact of taking vacations to Houston The new campaign more strongly influences visitation intent than “My Houston”:  Climbing from one in seven (15%) for “My Houston” to more than one in five (22%), “Houston is” entices more people to take a vacation to Houston  The most positive reactions occur among past year overnight leisure visitors (39%) to Houston and non- Texas residents (38%), with minimal difference between the Target and Non-Target group. Extremely Likely Very Somewhat Not Likely Reaction to “Houston Is” Print Campaign – Influence on Future Vacation Q28g. Based on this print campaign, how likely are you to take an overnight vacation or pleasure trip to Houston in the future? (Extremely (5) to not at all likely (1). HV* = Houston Visitor 88 NET Positive: 2012:22%39%24%17%38% 27% 26%

89 ©TNS 2012 Associations made with “Houston is” print campaign The print ads builds very favorable associations with cultural events/sites:  Secondarily, the ads fit with very active people  More of those in the Target group associate the campaign with each attribute than the Non-Target group, especially for “people like me” (which means that the ads are a good fit) and “romantic.” Associations Made With “Houston Is” Print Campaign: Houston is … Q28f. What associations do you make with this campaign? HV* = Houston Visitor 89

90 ©TNS 2012 Houston TV commercial awareness Q30j/30z/30l. Have you seen this commercial before on TV? Continuing to climb from prior years, almost a third now recognize the 2012 commercials :  Non-Houston Texas residents (34%) most often notice the commercial; only non-Texans lag by much  Continuing the upward trend, the commercials build greater recognition than last year, which doubled from the year before, and had doubled before that (31% from 25% from 13% from 5%)  Awareness of the ZZ Top and Lyle Lovett commercials place slightly above Jim Parsons. Awareness of Specific Houston CVB TV Commercials (2012 unless labeled otherwise) HV* = Houston Visitor 90

91 ©TNS 2012 Opinions/reaction to Houston CVB TV commercials Overall opinions of the TV commercials markedly outpace the “My Houston” print ads:  Houston’s TV ads improve perceptions much more often than the print ads, especially Jim Parsons (42%)  Most travelers like the ads (61% to 66%), about 50 percent stronger than the “My Houston” (41%)  Roughly a quarter of travelers believe the ads cause them to be more likely to visit Houston – notably exceeding print (15%). NET Top Two Ratings: 2012: 42%66%26%36%63% 24% 35% 61% 22% 2011: 43%65%25%36%64% 24% 31% 56% 20% 2010: na na na42%73%27%33% 63% 23% Top Rating Second Neutral Bottom 2 Ratings Summary of Opinion/Reaction to Houston CVB TV Commercials Base: 789 for Lyle Lovett; 792 for ZZ Top Q31aj/az/al. Based on this commercial, how has your impression of Houston changed? Much more positive (5) to much more negative (1) Q31bj/bz/bl. Overall, how much did you like this commercial? Like them very much (5) to dislike very much (1) Q31cj/cz/cl. Based on this commercial, how likely are you to take an overnight vacation or pleasure trip to Houston in the future? (Extremely (5) to not at all likely (1). Jim Parsons ZZ Top Lyle Lovett 91

92 ©TNS 2012 Impression of Houston based on TV commercial The commercials’ impact on impressions of Houston vary by ad:  The Jim Parsons ad (42%) builds a somewhat more positive impression of Houston than the other two  Regardless of commercial, past year overnight Houston visitors generally react more positively than other groups. Much More Positive Somewhat More Neutral More Negative Reaction to Houston CVB TV Commercial - Impression NET Positive: 2012: 42% 50% 40% 40%50% 36%47%38% 34%33%35%43% 36%34% 31% 2011: 43% 51% 44% 41%49% 36%42%40% 35%38%31%36% 34%29% 34% 2010:nanananana 42%47%42% 43%38%33%39% 32%34% 30% Q31aj/az/al. Based on this commercial, how has your impression of Houston changed? Much more positive (5) to much more negative (1). Jim Parsons ZZ Top Lyle Lovett HV* = Houston Visitor 92

93 ©TNS 2012 Impression of Houston based on TV commercial The ads work better for the Target group than the Non-Target group, especially ZZ Top. Much More Positive Somewhat More Neutral More Negative Reaction to Houston CVB TV Commercial - Impression NET Positive: 2012: 48%43% 50%35%43%35% Q31aj/az/al. Based on this commercial, how has your impression of Houston changed? Much more positive (5) to much more negative (1). Jim Parsons ZZ Top Lyle Lovett HV* = Houston Visitor 93

94 ©TNS 2012 Likeability of Houston CVB TV commercial Roughly two-thirds “like” the ads, with past year overnight Houston visitors reacting most favorably. Like Very Much Somewhat Neutral Dislike Ads Reaction to Houston CVB TV Commercial - Likeability Q31bj/bz/bl. Overall, how much did you like this commercial? Like them very much (5) to dislike very much (1). NET Positive: 2012:66% 72% 67% 64%70% 63%69%68% 60%57%61%68% 66%58% 59% 2011: 65% 72% 73% 61%68% 64%71%70% 63%59%56%64% 63%54% 56% 2010: nananana na 73%76%74% 73%67%63%69% 65%61% 65% Jim Parsons ZZ Top Lyle Lovett HV* = Houston Visitor 94

95 ©TNS 2012 Likeability of Houston CVB TV commercial Like Very Much Somewhat Neutral Dislike Ads Reaction to Houston CVB TV Commercial - Likeability Q31bj/bz/bl. Overall, how much did you like this commercial? Like them very much (5) to dislike very much (1). Jim Parsons ZZ Top Lyle Lovett HV* = Houston Visitor 95 NET Positive: 2012: 74%66% 74%64%69%65% The ads appeal to the Target group more strongly than the Non-Target group, especially ZZ Top.

96 ©TNS 2012 TV commercial impact of taking vacation to Houston About one in four expects to visit Houston, based on the commercial:  Overall results close mirror last year  Past year overnight leisure Houston visitors view the ads most positively; non-Houston Texas residents generally lag the other groups. Extremely Likely Very Somewhat Not Likely Reaction to Houston CVB TV Commercial – Influence on Future Vacation Q31cj/cz/cl. Based on this commercial, how likely are you to take an overnight vacation or pleasure trip to Houston in the future? NET Positive: 2012: 26% 41% 28% 21%41% 24%37%27% 20%26%22%37% 24%19% 33% 2011: 25% 44% 38% 20%33% 24%40%35% 19%31%20%34% 30%16% 22% 2010: nanananana 27%41%32% 24%28%23%38% 28%18% 28% Jim Parsons ZZ Top Lyle Lovett HV* = Houston Visitor 96

97 ©TNS 2012 TV commercial impact of taking vacation to Houston Extremely Likely Very Somewhat Not Likely Reaction to Houston CVB TV Commercial – Influence on Future Vacation Q31cj/cz/cl. Based on this commercial, how likely are you to take an overnight vacation or pleasure trip to Houston in the future? Jim Parsons ZZ Top Lyle Lovett HV* = Houston Visitor 97 NET Positive: 2012: 35% 28% 38%23%27%25% The ads build greater intent to visit among the Target group than the Non-Target group, especially ZZ Top.

98 ©TNS 2012 Since the primary goal of advertising is to convert potential travelers to visitors, looking beyond simple awareness becomes important:  Advertising appears very effective – encouraging roughly one out of 10 to visit  Compared to last year, Houston advertising awareness rises among most groups, especially Houston residents; however, non-Texas resident awareness remains nearly the same  Two caveats – this measure combines the features of current advertising with past travel – so it really measures Houston’s ongoing awareness and effectiveness, rather than these specific ads and two of the measures, by definition, includes Houston visitors, so the effectiveness looks much stronger than would be expected (Past Year Houston Visitors and Non-Texas Residents). Total advertising impact on Houston visitation NET Aware: 2012:nana36%37%40%37%23%37% 2011:na29%na34%28%30%25%na 2010:23%nana29%27%21%20%na Q14. Please indicate the total number of overnight leisure trips you have made to the Houston area in the past 12 months. Q27. Pease indicate if you have seen this ad campaign (My Houston) before. Q30j/Q30z/Q30l. Have you seen this commercial before on TV (Jim Parsons/ZZ Top/Lyle Lovett)? Q28c/Q31cj/Q31cz/Q31cl. Based on these ads, how likely are you to take an overnight vacation or pleasure trip to Houston in the future? HV* = Houston Visitor 98

99 Appendix IIe. Website Usage from Follow-up Survey

100 ©TNS 2012 General Website Features Many travelers find it important to research their travel destination, especially those with which they are unfamiliar. The primary topics vary little over time:  Ranked as 1-3: Travelers consistently rank where to stay, what to do, and savings/value as the most important destination website features  Top Rank Only: The top ranking mimics the importance of features ranked 1-3 with saving/value clearly leading other reasons, as travelers search for the best values. Most important features on website % Rank in Importance (2012 unless labeled otherwise) Ranked as 1-3 Top Rank (#1) Only Q13a. Abridged: Now, we would like you to consider travel destination websites. Please choose the 7 most important features on a travel destination website and rank them in order of importance (1=most important; 7 least important)? 100

101 ©TNS 2012 General Website: Regardless of group, the same items place at the top (where to stay, what to do, savings/value). Most important features on website continued % Rank in Importance (2012) Q13a. Abridged: Now, we would like you to consider travel destination websites. Please choose the 7 most important features on a travel destination website and rank them in order of importance (1=most important; 7 least important)? Ranked as 1-3 Top Rank (#1) Only 101

102 ©TNS 2012 Other important features on Websites General Website Features  Only a few travelers have website features to add to those already listed. These vary widely, but often include a desire for specific information on things to do in 2012: Q13b. What other feature is important on travel destination websites? 102 Things to see/do (6): Outdoor adventures Theatre/concerts History Region wide attractions Local cultural information and helpful hints Nightlife Best way to get there; maps/directions; interactive map with roads and satellite options; traffic (5) Weather (4) Prices; total costs; coupons (4) Local transportation; transportation options (3) Food; restaurant reviews (2) Guest reviews; reviews in general (2) User friendliness; navigation and coherence (2) Safety Place to relax Handicap accessibility :Where the Gay bars are and their accessibility Number of mentions = 1 unless in parens (#) Other Features Cited as Important: 2012 Pricing/costs/correct pricing/packages/discounts/ coupons/free “stuff” (9) Transportation - air/ground/parking (5) Weather at different times of year – when pleasant (4) Hotels – selection/prices/bedbugs/book on web (4) Sightseeing/sights/new sights/fun event schedule (4) Maps/directions/distance to attractions (4) Historical sites/gardens (4) Shopping (3) Safety (2) User/visitor reviews (2) Pictures/scenic descriptions (2) Nightlife (2) Entertainment RCI/II Timeshare location Birding info Fitness/Health options Where the locals go Good restaurants Fishing Believability Most popular destinations Access for physically disabilities Pet friendliness Number of mentions = 1 unless in parens (#) Other Features Cited as Important: 2011

103 ©TNS 2012 Houston websites visited About one in 10 have visited a Houston website – and that level doubles among past year overnight Houston visitors. Houston (.com) Websites Q19. Which of the following websites for the Greater Houston Convention and Visitors Bureau, if any, have you visited in the past 12 months? 103

104 ©TNS 2012 Houston website discovery Most travelers find the Greater Houston CVB website via an Internet search. Website Visitors’ Source of Information (2012 unless labeled otherwise) Q20. Please indicate how you found out about the Houston websites? * Very small sample; treat as qualitative only 104

105 ©TNS 2012 Characteristics/features of Houston’s website Website users agree with most statements about GHCVB’s website’s, particularly ease of use, promoting local attractions, and communicating Houston’s qualities  Areas with the most room for improvement continue to center around functionality: getting feedback from website representatives and ability to book/purchase. NET Agree: 2012:74%74%72%72%71%71%70%68%68%66%65% 2011:72%75%71%73%71%70%72%66%71%60%65% 2010:68%68%63%74%63%65%73%68%74%59%58% NET Agree: 2012:63%63%62%62%60%59%56%54%50%48%46% 2011:67%62%69%68%64%65%53%57%53%56%52% 2010:61%62%67%62%51%55%55%47%47%49%41% Website Characteristics/Features Q21. How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements regarding the VisitHouston.com characteristics or features? 105

106 ©TNS 2012 What the website says about Houston From the website, most users “take away” the variety of activities available in Houston:  Travelers perceive lots to see/do with something for everyone, cultural diversity, exciting urban experiences, and family activities/museums as the leading website messages  More people sense the uniqueness of Houston now than in the past. Website’s Message Base: 82 VisitHouston.com Visitors Q22. What does VisitHouston.com tell you about Houston? 106

107 ©TNS 2012 Satisfaction with Houston website Satisfaction levels of the website remains very high:  Although four out of five (79%) website users are somewhat to very satisfied with the website, it slips slightly, but steadily, from two years ago (84%)  None claims dissatisfaction. NET Satisfied: 2012:nana79%83%62% 2011:na82%na81%86% 2010:84%nana86%78% * Very small sample; treat as qualitative only Very Satisfied Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Not Very Dissatisfied Satisfaction with Houston Website Q23. What is your overall satisfaction with the Greater Houston CVB website? 107

108 ©TNS 2012 Houston’s website competitive comparison Improving from 2011, more than half (55%) of Houston’s website visitors deem it as much better or somewhat better than similar websites for city destinations; no one in 2011 or 2012 rates others better. So, despite a minor slippage in satisfaction, the Houston website gains competitive advantage. NET Better: 2012:nana55%57% 46% 2011:na49% na48% 57% 2010:51%na na51%52% * Very small sample; treat as qualitative only Much Better Somewhat Comparable Somewhat Worse Much Worse Houston Website’s Competition Q24. How well does the Greater Houston CVB’s website compare to similar websites for city destinations? 108

109 ©TNS 2012 Website features to improve  In general, most website users express overall satisfaction with the site, even when reflecting on possible improvements. While suggestions vary, posting restaurant choices and various activities available in the area seem to be the strongest themes. A few encountered technical problems. Q25. What features or sections should the website improve? 109 None/nothing to improve, OK as it is, everything is fine, no complaints, can’t think of anything to improve (26) Several mention information that they would like to see: (12) Info on food, ethnic food, small, out-of-the-way specialty restaurants where locals eat (3) Better maps Distances to attractions Expand selection is surrounding areas of Houston Be able to filter specific interests, such as free fairs More info on historical places More cultural information Local, small business venues Locate stations with best gasoline prices Where to go for emergency medical attention Show specials More content in general Some encountered problems: (4) Broken and circular links on site Some info outdated (perhaps update routinely?) Seems to load somewhat slowly Some links I clicked did not work We are Texans; where are the dancehalls? Number of mentions = 1 unless in parens (#) Website Features to Improve: 2012 Great/comprehensive website/complete/good as is (11) Easier/more user friendly/navigation/hyperlinks (hard to get back to home page)/chat support/Twitter link (8) Current/up-to-date/Seasonal activities and events/ things to do/graphics showing activities (7) Coupon/discount offers/more savings/discounts (4) Cost-related: Cost estimates/hotel prices/prices of admissions/ affordable suggestions for family (4) Transportation: options, ease of getting around without car/pictures of freeways (3) Night activities/nightlife (3) Museums, landmarks, and history (2) Maps: show what else is in area/downloadable maps (2) Sightseeing/things to do (2) Make family entertainment places easy to find Pictures More info on restaurants and shopping More realism – such as the heavy smog Fewer graphics Clubs Options for disabled people Number of mentions = 1 unless in parens (#) Website Features to Improve: 2011

110 ©TNS 2012 Perceived impact of Houston’s website Website users may positively react to Houston’s website in one of three listed ways: content may motivate them to seek more information, convince them to book a trip, or encourage them to stay longer/visit additional attractions:  The website causes users to seek more information twice as often as convincing them to go or lengthening stay/adding attractions, similar to last year  The website does not affect everyone positively; potential visitors may decide not to visit (1% for total website visitors, not shown) or simply believe that the website did not influence them at all (37%). Impact of Houston’s Website (2012 unless labeled otherwise) * Very small sample; treat as qualitative only Q26. How did your visit to the Greater Houston CVB website affect your leisure plans? 110

111 Appendix IIf: Houston Visitors Choices and Characteristics from Follow-up Survey

112 ©TNS 2012 Trips to Houston Logical Patterns Occur for Types of Trips to Houston:  Of course, living within close proximity to city events and attractions, Houston residents take far more day trips than residents outside of Houston  Visitation climbs slightly from last year – both day (36%) and overnight trips (34%)  While most Texans do not spend the night, they usually (57%) opt for a hotel if they do spend the night  Hotel guests from Houston – who visit more often – spend 5.1 nights a year in a hotel – and average 1.9 nights per trip; other visitors come less often, but stay longer per trip. Total 2010 (n=1,180) Total 2011 (n=1,234) Total 2012 (n=796) Past Yr. O/N Leisure Visitors (n=270) Houston Residents (n=299) Other Texas Residents (n=397) Non-Texas Residents (n=100) Day Trips NET Any 40%34%36%52%58%23%26% Mean (Inc. 0) Mean (Excl. 0) Overnight (O/N) Trips NET Any 40%33%34%100%23%32%73% Mean (Inc. 0) Mean (Excl. 0) Hotel Nights in Houston % With a Hotel Stay in Houston na21%19% 57%13%18%41% % of Houston O/Ns w/ Hotel Stay na63%57% 56% Average Total Hotel Nights (if any) na Average Hotel Nights/Trip (if any) na Q14. Please indicate the total number of leisure trips you have made to the Houston area in the past 12 months. Q14a. Of all your overnight trips to Houston in the past 12 months, how many total nights did you stay in a hotel? Q14b. On your last overnight trip to Houston, how many total nights did you stay in a hotel? 112

113 ©TNS 2012 Recency of last overnight leisure trip to Houston About half have visited Houston in the past 2 years, similar to prior waves. NET: Within Past 2 Years: 2012:nana47%100%43%41%88% 2011:na44%na100%53%37%66% 2010: 51%nana100%49%46%84% Within Past 12 Months 1 – 2 Years Ago 3 – 5 Years Ago 6+ Years Ago Never Elapsed Time Since Last Houston Overnight Visit (2012 unless labeled otherwise) Q15. When was your last overnight leisure trip to the Houston area? 113 By definition: Must have visited Houston in past 5 years, business or leisure, overnight not required

114 ©TNS 2012 Historically, a gradual increase in Houston visitation occurs throughout the spring and peaks in the summer months (notably June), followed by a sharp drop. Timing of last visit to Houston Month of Last Houston Overnight Visit - History Month of Last Houston Overnight Visit - Group Q16. What was the month of your last overnight leisure trip to the Houston area? 114

115 ©TNS 2012 Overnight spending amounts to visit Houston Important points from the overnight spending categories for the group include:  Non-Texas residents almost double the spending level of their Texas resident counterparts and remains much higher, even when excluding transportation to and from Houston  Overnight visitors living in Texas spend about the same, whether they live in Houston or not  Total spending exceeds the level noted in the past two waves ($503 in 2012). Total Travel Party Overnight Spending on Last Trip to Houston (Column Height Impacted by Expenditure) 2012: nana$503$606$430$451$823Average Total Spending nana$385$461$364$358$520Average exc. Travel To/Fro Houston 2011: na $485 na$515$476$421$936 Average Total Spending na $371 na$401$392$329$608 Average exc. Travel To/Fro Houston 2010: $496 nana$580$453$420$888 Average Total Spending $376 nana$435$383$338$520 Average exc. Travel To/Fro Houston Q17. Please estimate the dollars your travel party spent for each of the categories below on your last overnight leisure trip to Houston? 115

116 ©TNS 2012 Satisfaction with Houston visit Houston satisfies a majority of its overnight leisure visitors:  Past year leisure visitors remain happy with Houston, rebounding from last year’s dip (75%)  As seen consistently in prior image and preference measures, Texas residents outside of Houston also rate satisfaction with Houston below other groups  Houston residents satisfaction slips from the recent past. NET Top Four Ratings (7-10): 2012: nana60%75%67%53%70% 2011: na57%na71%82%48%69% 2010: 62% nana75%71%55%74% Extremely Very Somewhat Not Pleased Houston Q18. Overall, how pleased were you with your last overnight leisure trip to the Houston area? 116

117 Appendix IIg: Attitudes and Behaviors from Follow-up Survey

118 ©TNS 2012 General description/feelings of traveler Often sharing similar attitudes, Houston visitors sometimes differ from other travelers. Traveler Descriptions/Feelings % Strongly Agree Q37. For each statement below, can you please tell me how much you agree or disagree that the statement describes you or your feelings. 118 HV* = Houston Visitor

119 ©TNS 2012 General description/feelings of traveler Q37. For each statement below, can you please tell me how much you agree or disagree that the statement describes you or your feelings. 119 Prepared to pay more to visit places that offer something really original Buy quality, not price Like to travel to exotic places Slightly higher incomes Characteristics of Travelers More Likely to Visit Houston in Next 2 Years Love to shop at markets/specialty stores Seek lowest prices Like to shop before purchasing Rather try something new than enjoy something known Willing to fly Drive an SUV Unlikely to buy clothes for comfort rather than style Average income Younger Characteristics of Target (Female Houston Visitors 35-55) Family and friends ask advice on travel matters Prepared to pay more to visit places that offer something really original Incomes sufficient to satisfy important desires Quality is worth the extra money/ Buy quality, not price Like to travel to exotic places Unlikely to buy clothes for comfort over style Unlikely to seek the lowest prices Higher incomes Characteristics of Recent Houston Leisure Visitors Houston Visitor groups vary from other travelers in these ways:

120 Appendix IIh: Final Comments

121 ©TNS 2012 Comments regarding Houston General Comments Travelers often commend Houston as a travel destination, but adamantly complain about the weather. Comments center around its diversity, food, and a place to visit family:  “Houston is a great place to go, but save it for the winter months … summers are grueling.”  “I love Houston’s museums, attractions, and shops. Food is excellent and people are friendly.”  “I absolutely LOVE Houston; I highly recommend it as a travel destination.”  “Very diverse, interesting, great restaurants, a myriad of things to do, see, experience.”  “GREAT PLACE … never enough hours in the day or days in the week to experience it all.”  “We have family there and love the Houston area … it’s a great place to visit.” Common comments regarding Houston: 2011 Q32. Please share below any additional comments you may have regarding Houston, TX as a travel destination? 121 “Houston is a nightmare for driving and the humidity” “Houston literally stinks; it and Galveston smell of dead fish” “I like Houston, but there is too much traffic and you really need to know what parts are safe and what to avoid” “I lived there, didn’t like it, but the ad campaign is great” “Traffic is brutal” “Hot, humid, people are unfriendly and stupid” “Too hot, too many mosquitoes, horrible traffic, it stinks” “It’s dirty and crime-ridden” “Driving is not for the faint of heart” “Houston is a scary place … rapists, thieves, etc.” “Sorry, but I hate Houston; ugly, horrible weather, & in-laws” “Too hot from May to September” “Need more advertising that appeals to families/children” Negative “Totally underestimated…has everything a city could offer” “Great place for Mexican food!” “Great museums, food, race track (car and horse), lots to do” “Many museums, plays, sports teams/games, fantastic zoo” “Great sports venues, comfortable/appealing, natural history museum, outstanding golf, top-notch aquarium, great parks” “Great place; deserves much better press as a destination” “Born/raised here – wonderful city, you name it, Houston has it. Something for everyone…arts, nightlife, shopping, sports” “Near the coast/gulf, museums, shopping, zoo” “Love it!!! Y’all come on down!!!” “The annual international quilt festival is awesome!” “The medical center has some of the best doctors in the world – that should be mentioned in the ads” Positive

122 Appendix IIi: Research Purposes and Methods

123 ©TNS 2012 Introduction and purposes of research TNS is pleased to present the fourth TravelsAmerica report for the Greater Houston Convention & Visitors Bureau (CVB). Conducted continuously throughout the year as a nationwide syndication by TNS, this online (data collection) project enables the Greater Houston CVB to assess visitor volumes and build a profile of leisure visitors to the area, specifically:  Volume and source of visitors  Basic demographics: age, number of people in household, average household income  Trip characteristics: day vs. overnight, business travel, travel expenditures, length of stay, activities selected  Mode of transportation: air, own auto/truck, and other choices  Visitor residence by state and selected DMAs. In addition, a separate follow-up survey of Houston visitors measures the “whys behind visitation,” advertising effectiveness/ROI, and web usability such as:  Important aspects of choosing a destination and travel planning and booking  Perceptions, motivators, and interest in Houston vs. competitors  Media usage  Awareness, recall, and influence of ads  Impact of website on brand, affinity, and purchase intent. The report continues with a description of the research methods, an Executive Summary, and an Appendix with detailed research results. 123

124 ©TNS 2012 Glossary TermDefinition DMADesignated Market Area: Counties that share the same primary TV broadcast signals (210 DMAs in US) Calendar Year (CY)January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011 In-StateTexas Person-TripTotal person-trips are all trips taken by all people; i.e. a couple taking three trips counts as six (two people, each taking three trips) Respondent/Household LevelRespondent information – one count per respondent Source of VisitorsResidence of visitors State/Region LevelInformation about all trips taken to a particular state/region (each trip to an area counts) State VolumeAll trips taken to/within the state Travel PartyTraveler plus all companions, including children TripTravel 50 miles or more (one-way) away from home or stayed overnight. Excludes commuters or commercial travel (flight attendants, commercial vehicle operator). This eliminates some leisure day trips, such as some visitors from Galveston, since the distance is about 50 miles Trip LevelInformation about all trips – each trip counts Trip VolumeAll trips summed together VisitorPerson who has visited Houston in the past month; all are US residents, thus, travel is domestic travel only (domestic consumer). 124

125 ©TNS 2012 Research methods The syndicated TravelsAmerica study collects data via a web based methodology. Sample is selected from the TNS USA Panel with invitations sent monthly to representative households. TNS targets a response rate of 45%. The field period runs for two weeks each month, usually starting in the middle of the first week. To enhance relevance, the data are weighted two ways:  Demographic weights adjust respondents by demographic factors such as region, age, income, household size, and marital status to closely represent the characteristics of US households  Trip and state projection calculations collects detailed information for up to three trips in the past month to project the actual number of trips taken. In the case of city level calculations, each trip taken to that city counts. A few tables represent person-trips – these take into account the immediate travel party size for each trip as well. For projections, the counts are weighted to reflect the actual number of US households and total trips. TNS supervises all fieldwork, editing, coding, and tabulation of the results. This special report focuses on results for Greater Houston. For the calendar years 2008 through 2011, respondents (does not include others in travel party) for Houston and total are shown below. CY 2008 #of Travelers (Unweighted) CY 2008 # of Travelers (Weighted) CY 2009 #of Travelers (Unweighted) CY 2009 # of Travelers (Weighted) CY 2010 #of Travelers (Unweighted) CY 2010 # of Travelers (Weighted) CY 2011 #of Travelers (Unweighted) CY 2011 # of Travelers (Weighted) Region Houston Visitors 75,00173,38274,20373,91074,41375,74164,15575,168Total for TravelsAmerica 125

126 ©TNS 2012 Research methods continued For the follow up survey, three groups who had completed the TravelsAmerica study in were re-contacted to participate in the follow-up study. Those groups include:  Texas residents  Houston residents  Houston overnight leisure visitors The field period ran June 28-July 5, 2012, similar to prior years (May 16-26, 2011, June in 2010, and August 11-24, 2009). # of Respondents 2009 # of Respondents 2010 # of Respondents 2011 # of Respondents 2012 Sample Group Past Year Overnight Leisure Visitors (subset of total) Houston Residents Texas Residents Outside Of Houston Non-Texas Residents Who Have Visited Houston 6921,1801,234796Total 126


Download ppt "August 2012 TNS 212 229202 Houston Visitor Profile Calendar Year 2011."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google