July 2010 Houston Visitor Profile Calendar Year 2009.

July 2010 Houston Visitor Profile Calendar Year 2009

2 © TNS 2010 Table of contents Introduction and Purposes of Research 4 Glossary 5 Research Methods 6 Topics 8 Brief Abstract10 Executive Summary/Implications11 Results of TravelsAmerica Research17 Volume 18 Visitor Types19 Trip Purpose 20 Visitor Source 21 Visitor Demographics 23 Trip Planning/Booking 26 Trip Characteristics 30 Destination Competitors37 Satisfaction39

3 © TNS 2010 Table of contents continued Results of Follow-up Research 40 Demographics 41 Attribute Importance 43 City Destination Preference 45 City of Residence Evaluation 49 City Opinions/Ratings 51 Future Visitation 63 Advertising Awareness: General 65 Advertising Awareness: Specific Houston CVB Ads 72 Website Usage 90 Houston Visitors: Choices and Characteristics101 Final Comments 108

4 © TNS 2010 Introduction and purposes of research TNS is pleased to present the second TravelsAmerica report for the Greater Houston Convention & Visitors Bureau (CVB). This online (data collection) project is conducted continuously throughout the year by TNS as a nationwide syndication. The results enable 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 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, then an Executive Summary. The following Results of the Research section includes detailed findings.

5 © TNS 2010 Glossary TermDefinition DMADesignated Market Area: Counties that share the same primary TV broadcast signals (210 DMAs in US) Calendar Year (CY)January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2009 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).

6 © TNS 2010 Research methods The syndicated TravelsAmerica study collects data via a web based methodology. Sample is selected from the TNS 6th dimension USA Panel with e-mail invitations sent monthly to representative households. TNS constantly strives to keep Internet penetration high and panel fatigue low by carefully monitoring and limiting the number of contacts with each household. Each month, potential respondents receive an e-mail request to participate in the study; 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 counts every trip taken by respondents for total trips taken. Detailed information collected for up to three trips in the past month is projected to 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 and 2009, 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) Region 713715760784Houston Visitors 75,00173,38274,20373,910Total for TravelsAmerica

7 © TNS 2010 Research methods continued For the follow up survey three groups who had completed the TravelsAmerica study in 2008 were re-contacted. Those groups include: Texas residents Houston residents Houston visitors Potential respondents received email invitations to participate in the follow up survey. The field period ran June 16-28, 2010, somewhat earlier than last year (August 11-24, 2009). # of Respondents 2009# of Respondents 2010Sample Group 326471Past Year Overnight Leisure Visitors (subset of total) 309373Houston Residents 259664Texas Residents Outside Of Houston 124143Non-Texas Residents Who Have Visited Houston 6921,180Total

8 © TNS 2010 Topics Derived from the TNS TravelsAmerica syndication, this second annual report prepared for the Houston CVB for Calendar Year 2009 addresses these topics in this order: TNS TravelsAmerica syndication: Volume of visitors Visitor types (business/leisure; day/overnight) Purpose (business/leisure) and source (Texas resident or not) Source of visitors (top states and top DMAs) Percent of Texas residents visiting Houston Visitor demographics Trip planning (timing and source of information) Trip booking methods Trip characteristics: purpose, transportation, day/overnight, accommodations/ length of stay, travel party, activities, expenditures Destinations: Houston visitors – competitive states Destinations: Houston visitors – competitive cities Satisfaction with Houston.

9 © TNS 2010 Topics TNS 2010 follow-up survey to Houston visitors and/or Texas residents: Demographics and residence Attributes for choosing a destination – importance and Houston ranking Opinion of own city (the one in which respondent lives) as a leisure destination Image of Houston and competitive cities as “ideal” leisure destination Percent visiting Houston or competitors Visitors’ opinions of Houston vs. competitors on value for the money, experience, likelihood to return, and likelihood to recommend Future visitation Unaided advertising awareness, media recall, and effect of advertising Aided advertising awareness for specific Houston ads – print, TV commercials, online ads and reactions to them Advertising impact (all ads combined) Website usage and evaluations Houston trip behaviors: number of visits, timing, spending levels, satisfaction General comments.

10 © TNS 2010 Brief abstract The recession continues to impact travel, but Houston takes a smaller “hit” in 2009 than Texas and the US as a whole. Other bright spots include: A growing proportion of leisure overnight visitors (61% of visitors spent the night for leisure in 2009 vs. 51% in 2008) – the longer they stay, the more they spend, and the more time they have to enjoy Houston’s features High level of visitation from other Texas metro areas – suggesting a strong degree of support from drive markets, which are usually more resilient during downturns; further, the proportion of Texas residents that visited Houston in the past three years grows slightly (32% from 30% in 2008). Above average proportion of business visitors, who generally spend more on each trip (13% business travelers for US destinations; 18% business travelers visiting Houston) Overnight visitors average almost four nights on their trip to Houston, somewhat above average (3.7 vs. 3.4 average US) Although the proportion declines from a year ago, future intent to visit remains high (54% within next year) among those in the follow-up study Houston is the preferred Texas destination when looking for exciting urban activities, particularly variety of dining options and cultural/performing arts When compared to non-Texas competitors (New Orleans, Atlanta, Denver), Houston often leads or challenges New Orleans for the lead on the 24 destination attributes Advertising awareness rises to almost one in four (23% vs. 19% last year), suggesting good decisions by GHCVB. The ZZ Top commercial generates the highest praise.

Executive Summary/Implications

12 © TNS 2010 Executive summary/implications Importance of tourism to Houston Several measures underscore the importance of tourism to Houston: Volume of Visitors. Nationwide economic decline has caused a considerable reduction in tourism. Although it hit Houston especially hard in 2008 (-22% vs. -13% nationally), Houston (-3%) is more resilient in 2009, declining at a third the rate of the US overall (-9%) or even the rest of Texas (-10%). Travel Spending in Houston. Although declining a bit from 2008 ($508), visitors spend substantial amounts in Houston, averaging $492 for each travel party. As expected, business travelers ($821) spend more than leisure travelers ($398) and overnight visitors ($448 leisure; $932 business) spend much more than day-trip visitors ($196 leisure). Spending notably more on lodging and transportation, non-Texas residents ($888) average higher spending levels than Houston residents ($453) and non- Houston Texas residents ($420). Source of Visitors. Texas supplies the majority (58%) of Houston visitors; Louisiana ranks a very distant 2nd place (8%). Trip Purpose. Most visitors to Houston are tourists (not business travelers), however Houston attracts more business travelers than the national average (18% Houston, 13% all trips). With proportionately more business travelers, leisure trips fall slightly behind the norm (73% Houston; 79% all trips), but they still make up almost three-quarters of all Houston travel. Of all Houston leisure trips, most are overnight (84%). Timing. Impacted by the timing of the survey (June rather than August), the heaviest travel to Houston peaks earlier than last year (June vs. July/August). Business Travel. Business travel behaviors/choices differ from leisure travelers; for example, they more often stay in hotels/motels and travel alone. Houston attracts a larger proportion of business travelers than other destinations (18% Houston; 13% total) while also capturing a larger share of personal business/other (10% vs. 8%).

13 © TNS 2010 Executive summary/implications continued Profile: trip and travel characteristics Demographics: Houston Visitors Resemble Visitors Elsewhere, With Some Variations: Visitors from New York City/Chicago/Washington DC ($80,900) report higher earnings than others ($67,200 total Houston visitors), although the gap is smaller than last year Ethnicity comparisons show a larger proportion of African American visitors than for US travelers as a whole (12% vs. 8%) – particularly those from Dallas-Ft. Worth, Austin, or San Antonio (16%). Travel Planning Horizons Are Short. Many (42%) Houston visitors decide to take the trip within two weeks of departure – similar to the total US (41%). As expected, leisure overnighters (33%) less frequently plan to visit on short notice (within two weeks) than leisure day-trippers (74%) or than Houston residents (62%). Travelers Primarily Rely on “Offline” Information Sources. Houston visitors rely primarily on their own experience (26%) and friends/relatives (20%) to gather travel information, similar to other travelers, but the gap between offline and online narrows slightly (15%-pt. difference vs. 21%-pts. last year). Houston Visitors Most Often Book “Online.” More Houston visitors rely on online booking sources (65% vs. 52% all travelers), booking at least one aspect of their trips (air/hotel/entertainment/etc.) that way. Most Visitors Drive. Two-thirds (65%) drive to Houston, somewhat less than overall travelers (71%). The greater proportion of overnight business travel to Houston contributes to the above average level of air travel (24% Houston visitors, 18% all travelers). Overnighters Spend More. Because of the additional time to see/do more things and because they incur lodging expenses, leisure overnight visitors spend more than twice as much as day-trippers ($448 vs. $196). Business overnighters spend the most ($932), although leisure overnight visitors stay slightly longer (3.7 vs. 3.4). Since last year, all Houston groups spend slightly less money and time (# of overnights) in Houston.

14 © TNS 2010 Executive summary/implications continued Houston Relies on Texas Tourism Houston Attracts Texans. Proximity plays a substantial role in Houston tourism. Over half (58%) of visitors live in Texas; Louisiana, in second place, contributes far fewer (8%). The top seven city sources are in Texas (led by Houston, Dallas-Ft. Worth, Austin and San Antonio); Chicago contributes 2% while New York City and Washington DC contribute about 1% each. 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 take additional vacations to the Northeast, although they add California to their list. Despite this polarization, both groups most often select Florida as a place they want to visit in the future. Houston Tends to Trail San Antonio 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 most important in a travel destination including good value for the money, friendly/welcoming, lots to see/do, reasonable costs, and good service. Travelers most often choose Houston for urban activities, notably variety of dining options and cultural/performing arts. Opinion ratings of Houston remain positive, but trail other Texas cities. The majority of visitors perceive Houston positively in overall opinion (51%), value for the money (61%), experience in Houston (68%), likely to return (70%), and a place to recommend (65%). However, visitors to other Texas cities rate those cities more strongly, especially San Antonio (75%, 72%, 85%, 83%, 84% respectively). In addition, Houston visitors’ ratings also slide from last year (61%; 68%; 76%; 70%; 72% respectively).

15 © TNS 2010 Executive summary/implications continued Advertising Awareness Directly Relates to Distance from Houston and Visitation Houston’s unaided ad awareness trails San Antonio. San Antonio leads in overall unaided ad awareness (31%), above all other Texas cities in the study (DFW at 15%, Houston 13%, and Austin 13%). Past year visitors (16%) and Houston residents (16%) most often remember a Houston ad. Among the GHCVB ads, overall awareness increases from last year. Print ad awareness drops slightly (13% from 18%), but television (13% from 5%) and online recall of ads (4%, not measured in 2009) more than compensate. Nearly one in four remembers at least one ad (23% vs. 19% last year). The ZZ Top Commercial generates a better impression of Houston than other ads. The ZZ Top commercial improves perceptions of Houston more than any other ad (42% vs. 33% for Lyle Lovett; 26% for the online Economy Stinks ad, 17% for HHH, and 15% for the print ads). People like the ZZ Top Commercial best as well. Viewers rate its likeability very highly (73% vs. 63% Lyle Lovett, 40% Economy Stinks, and 35% each for HHH and the print ads. Finally, ZZ Top builds higher interest in future visitation. More viewers think they will travel to Houston because of the ad (27% vs. 23% for Lyle Lovett, 20% for Economy Stinks, 21% for the print ads, and 15% for HHH). Advertising effective for Houston. Advertising generates about one out 10 visits to Houston. Greater Houston CVB Website – Value Still Key Destination website users look for deals. More travelers choose savings/value as the top desired feature in a travel destination website while save money ranks 16 th out of 22 statements about the GHCVB website by its users. Thus, Houston has an opportunity to improve already high (and growing) levels of satisfaction by making savings/value a stronger element. Houston Generates Good Levels of Satisfaction Satisfaction Varies by Proximity. Although fewer than last year (62% extremely/very satisfied from 71%), most visitors grant Houston high praise (necessary for strong word-of-mouth “advertising”), especially Non-Texans. The declines occurred in past year overnight visitors (75% from 82%) and non-Houston Texans (55% from 67%).

16 © TNS 2010 Executive summary/implications continued Assessment Houston Draws The Business Traveler. As companies continue to cut spending in harsh economic conditions and 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 and urban appeal. Houston Visitors Are Within “Easy Reach.” Since many live within easy access to Houston, visitors need less time to plan/decide trips. Thus, marketing can be flexible in media choices, can develop quick promotions, and probably see results faster than destinations which rely on more distant markets. Houston excels at attracting overnight visitors (84% of leisure visitors spend the night) who spend more time in Houston than average for US travelers (3.7 vs. 3.4 nights). Houston Leisure Travel Potentially More Lucrative. With far more nights stayed in private homes than average (2.6 Houston vs. 1.6 Total US), overnight leisure travelers to Houston average less than one night in a hotel. This dovetails with the unusually high percentage of overnight leisure travelers in town to visit family (73%). Finding ways to encourage these travelers to stay in the city could increase tourism spending. Tough Economy Impacts Tourism. The general downturn noted for the US economy hits the discretionary-income-dependent tourism industry especially hard. However, Houston takes a smaller hit in 2009 than either the US or Texas and the city can point to several successes – fewer are in town just to visit family (73% from 77%), greater GHCVB advertising awareness (23%; 19%), less dependence upon the business traveler (18%; 21%), and more overnight leisure visitors (61%; 51%). Messaging. The reluctance of leisure travelers to stay overnight in a hotel/motel suggests that Houston’s marketing message could target the visitors staying with friends/relatives. 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.

Results of the Research From TravelsAmerica Syndicated Survey

18 © TNS 2010 Volume of visitors Market Overview (Person Trips): Compared to the prior year, 2009 person-trips drop as follows: All US Trips ( -9%; 853 million from 939 million); Texas (-10%; 60 million from 67 million); Houston (-3%; 9.8 million from 9.5 million). Although declining, Houston tourism in 2009 outperformed the rest of Texas and the rest of the US, dropping only a third as much. The declining economy impacts all of tourism, with Houston taking a larger hit in 2008 but managing to maintain a relatively stable level in 2009 while other areas continued to drop. 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 CY 2006CY 2007CY 2008CY 2009 2008 - 2009 % Change Type of Person Trips (Visitors) Total US1,084,344,0001,233,242,000938,563,000852,967,000-9% Total Texas80,625,00076,424,00066,849,00060,409,000-10% Total Houston12,087,00012,661,0009,488,0009,812,000-3%

19 © TNS 2010 Visitor types 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 – and the leisure segment grows slightly in 2009. Houston VISITORS by TYPE Base: Houston Visitors PB*: Personal Business/Other Day 19% Overnight 81% Q1b. Please select the primary purpose for trips... (demo wtd; trip level) Leisure = 73% Leisure = 67%

20 © TNS 2010 Trip purpose/visitor source Overall: Three-quarters (73%) of Houston visitors primarily travel for leisure – slightly fewer than for total US visitors (79%) and for the state of Texas (76%), but all three areas show an increase in the proportion traveling for leisure. Somewhat more than half (58%) of Houston visitors live in Texas – essentially matching last year. 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)

21 © TNS 2010 Visitor source by state/DMA Proximity Counts: As noted earlier, slightly more than half (58%) of visitors reside in Texas Nearby Louisiana and more populated states (CA, FL) also contribute heavily to Houston’s tourism Texas DMAs, particularly Dallas-Ft. Worth, and larger US cities add the most visitors to the 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...

22 © TNS 2010 Destinations: Houston visitation A Different Viewpoint – How Many Texans and Non-Texans Visit Houston: A third (32%) of Texans visited Houston in the past three years, many (20%) within the past 12 months; in addition, one in eight (13%) plans to visit within two years, very similar to last year Typical of most destinations, Houston draws over half of its visitors from within the state (58%, shown earlier). Non-Texans have many destinations from which to choose, with only a few (4%) visiting Houston in the past three years, but that proportion grows from last year. Non-Texans contribute not quite half (42%, also shown earlier) of Houston’s total tourism. 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)

23 © TNS 2010 Visitor demographics Houston Visitors Resemble Visitors to Other Areas, With a Few Variations: Houston visitors closely mirror the incomes of both overall US and Texas travelers. However, those living in New York, Chicago, or Washington, DC report higher earnings, although by a smaller gap than noted last year Overall household composition for Houston visitors often (43%) includes three or more people in the household – similar to overall US travelers – thus, the family market is important for Houston Ethnicity comparisons show that a larger proportion of Houston visitors, especially those from Dallas Ft. Worth, Austin, and San Antonio are African-American, as noted last year as well. Panel: Age, Income, Children, Ethnicity. (Household Level – demo wtd) 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 Age46 44464348 Average Hhld Income$67,800$67,400$67,200$53,300$69,900$80,900 % Male39%41%39%44%39%25% % Married596360476946 Household Composition % One Person22%19%24%31%20%37% % Two People353634303334 % Three or More444543394730 Ethnicity % Caucasian85%86%79%80%73%82% % Spanish Origin487880 % African-American8712111614 *Very small sample; treat as qualitative only

24 © TNS 2010 Visitor demographics Prior year data provided for ease of comparison Panel: Age, Income, Children, Ethnicity. (Household Level – demo wtd) CY 2008 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 Age464544454346 Average Hhld Income$65,300$67,700$73,500$67,600$70,800$105,400 % Male43%46%47%44%43%68% % Married58626665 79 Household Composition % One Person22%20%19% 21% % Two People343530352919 % Three or More444551475260 Ethnicity % Caucasian86% 81%91%79%85% % Spanish Origin464130 % African-American891241510 *Very small sample; treat as qualitative only

25 © TNS 2010 Visitor age distribution Greater Detail by Age: Shows that Houston draws slightly fewer older visitors than other destinations Visitors from New York, Chicago, or Washington, DC more often place in the middle age group; relatively few young adults from these markets visit Houston. Age of Visitor QD. How old are you... (Respondent Level, demo weighted) * Very small sample; treat as qualitative only CY 2009 CY 2008

26 © TNS 2010 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; two-thirds (68%) consider and decide to visit within two weeks of the trip Overnight business travelers spend less time planning a trip than overnight leisure travelers Houston visitors who are Houston residents continue to plan trips with much shorter time horizons than travelers from farther away – twice as many consider the trip within two weeks (54% vs. 27%), with a similar gap for the actual decision (62% vs. 27%) Houston visitors have similar planning time horizon as all travelers to all US destinations with slightly fewer taking three months or more to consider and decide on the trip. 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 Weeks32%34%24%68%35%54%35%27% 2 – 4 Weeks141514626122024 1 – 3 Months2024281219172313 3+ Months3427351520172337 Decided Within Two Weeks41%42%33%74%42%62%44%27% 2 – 4 Weeks1517 925131924 1 – 3 Months192024717132021 3+ Months2521271116131728 *Business (Bz) Day Trips not shown (too few for reliable comparisons) ** Very small sample; treat as qualitative only

27 © TNS 2010 Trip planning: timing Q4i. Please indicate how far in advance you considered traveling to... // Decided to visit... (State Level-demo wtd) CY 2008 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 Weeks34%37%25%58%41%64%33%16% 2 – 4 Weeks141514132116159 1 – 3 Months192126121892548 3+ Months3326351620112726 Decided Within Two Weeks42%46%34%70%47%72%45%19% 2 – 4 Weeks1517 1323121618 1 – 3 Months19172241551938 3+ Months252128 1316111926 *Business (Bz) Day Trips not shown (too few for reliable comparisons) ** Very small sample; treat as qualitative only Prior year data provided for ease of comparison

28 © TNS 2010 Trip planning: sources of information Trip Planning Sources: Destinations, in order to be selected, must provide potential travelers with information that encourages visits: Generally, Houston visitors use similar information sources as other travelers However, compared to last year and to total travelers, they lean slightly more heavily towards online than offline sources. Information Sources to Plan a Trip Ranked by All Sources (5%+) Q4j. What sources did you use in planning your trip to... (State Level – demo wtd)

29 © TNS 2010 Trip booking Trip Booking Methods: More strongly than for gathering information, Houston visitors place greater emphasis on online booking channels than offline channels: Houston visitors book online more often (65% vs. 52%) than all travelers and, consequently, book offline less often (25% vs. 38%) For booking, they more often rely on travel provider websites and online full service agencies than total travelers and they also do so more often than they did in 2008. 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 © TNS 2010 Trip characteristics: purpose & transportation Most Visitors Come to Houston to Play: Three-quarters (73%) of Houston visitors come primarily for leisure, often to visit friends/relatives (51%) Although most come to play, Houston draws more business travelers than the national average (18% vs. 13%). More than half (56%) of those traveling from New York, Chicago, and Washington, DC come to Houston on business. 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/D C Resident** PRIMARY TRIP PURPOSE NET Leisure/Personal79%73%100% --77%76%37% Visit Friends/Relatives42517360--495431 Entertainment/Sightsee138920--1154 Outdoor Recreation7231--14 NET Business1318-- 100%61656 Personal Bs/Other810-- 1777 PRIMARY MODE % Own Auto/Truck71%65% 97%27%90%87%11% % Air Travel1824231574672 % Rental Car 455--9239 % Other 86727449 *Business (Bz) Day Trips not shown (too few for reliable comparisons) ** Very small sample; treat as qualitative only

31 © TNS 2010 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 2008 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/D C Resident** PRIMARY TRIP PURPOSE NET Leisure/Personal77%67%100% --72% 51% Visit Friends/Relatives41487755--455334 Entertainment/Sightsee126715--765 Outdoor Recreation 7357--834 NET Business1521-- 100%161116 Personal Bs/Other 812-- 121833 PRIMARY MODE % Own Auto/Truck70%66%69%96%34%89%83%17% % Air Travel1824213525771 % Rental Car 455--10275 % Other 85514437 *Business (Bz) Day Trips not shown (too few for reliable comparisons) ** Very small sample; treat as qualitative only Prior year data provided for ease of comparison

32 © TNS 2010 Trip characteristics: day/overnight Most Trips Include an Overnight Stay: Most domestic (US) trips include an overnight stay (71%); the proportion rises for Texas visitors (75%), and rises again for Houston visitors (78%) Houston continues to draw a larger share overnight visitors – especially among those traveling on business. (Note: personal business and other are not classified as either business or leisure trips, so leisure + business will not equal total). 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 2009 CY 2008

33 © TNS 2010 Trip characteristics: lodging and length of stay Most Visitors Spend a Few Days in Houston: Business overnight visitors (3.4 nights) spend slightly fewer nights than leisure overnight visitors (3.7 nights), but business travelers usually stay in hotels (79% of the time) vs. only about a fifth of the time (22%) for overnight leisure travelers The shortest stays (2.4 nights) occur among those who travel from elsewhere in Texas (DFW/Austin/ San Antonio), perhaps choosing Houston as a short getaway The length of stay shortens for all Houston visitor groups from the prior year. 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 2009 AVG # NIGHTS (if any)3.43.63.7--3.42.92.43.9 Private Home1.62.12.6--0.62.21.42.3 Hotel/Motel1.2 0.8--2.70.60.71.5 All Other0.60.3 --0.1 0.30.2 CY 2008 AVG # NIGHTS (if any)3.23.84.0--3.64.12.74.0 Private Home1.52.22.9--0.42.81.41.8 Hotel/Motel1.2 0.6--2.60.40.92.2 All Other0.50.40.5--0.40.80.50.1 *Business (Bz) Day Trips not shown (too few for reliable comparisons) ** Very small sample; treat as qualitative only

34 © TNS 2010 Trip characteristics: travel party Travel companions vary by purpose of the trip: More than a third (37%) of Houston’s leisure overnight visitors arrive in pairs, a slightly smaller share than of day trip visitors (41%) Business travelers sometimes have one companion (15%), but usually travel solo (72%, not shown) As expected, leisure travelers more likely travel with children (36% vs. 5% business travelers). Q3a: 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 2009 AVERAGE # IN TRAVEL PARTY (Q3a)2.72.32.5 1.6 % Travel in Pairs38%35%38%37%41%15% % Traveling with Children273036 385 Avg. # of Children on Trip (if any)2.11.71.81.71.81.3 Average # in Travel Party in Household2.0 2.2 2.11.3 CY 2008 AVERAGE # IN TRAVEL PARTY (Q3a)2.82.32.7 2.51.6 % Travel in Pairs37%32%36%34%46%19% % Traveling with Children27 3538274 Avg. # of Children on Trip (if any)2.11.821.841.91.51.6 Average # in Travel Party in Household2.0 2.3 2.11.2

35 © TNS 2010 Trip characteristics: vacation activities/attractions Top Vacation Activities/Attractions: Somewhat different from total US travelers, Houston visitors more often visit for social engagements -- visiting relatives and visiting 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 State/National Park visits lag the national average. 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)

36 © TNS 2010 Trip characteristics: expenditures by type of travel Value of Visitors by Type of Trip: Overnight LEISURE visitors spend over twice as much as day-trip visitors ($448 vs. $196) With no lodging expense, Houston day visitors spend a greater proportion of their budget on shopping With more nights in hotels, the average business traveler spends over twice as much as the average leisure traveler ($821 vs. $398) Houston visitors feel the impact of the economy – except for day trippers, all groups spend less than in the prior year. 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 CY 2008 Spending $508 $416 $911 $501 $153 $1,010

37 © TNS 2010 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. Florida and California rank highly for both groups – especially as a destination of interest for future travel. 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) *Very small sample; treat as qualitative only

38 © TNS 2010 Destinations: competitive cities Other Texas Cities and Orlando Also Attract Houston Visitors: Houston visitors within Texas often visit other Texas destinations (Dallas/Ft. Worth and San Antonio) Residents of the larger cities tend to travel to other larger cities. 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 *Very small sample; treat as qualitative only

39 © TNS 2010 Satisfaction: Houston by residence Overall Satisfaction with Houston: Houston satisfies almost nine out of 10 (86% - 88%) visitors, regardless of where they live In total, few visitors (2% - 4%) express displeasure with Houston, but NY/Chicago/DC residents seem more reluctant to assign the highest level of praise (extremely satisfied). Note: Not pleased includes Not At All and Not Very Pleased Satisfaction with Houston Visit By Group (Base) DFW/Austin/San Antonio Residents Total Houston Visitors Q4l: Using a scale of 1-5 (5=extremely satisfied), please indicate satisfaction with Houston. (State Level-demo wtd.) SomewhatNot PleasedVeryExtremely NY/Chicago/DC Residents* * Very small sample; treat as qualitative only NET Top Two 86% 88% 86% 84% 87% 79% DFW/Austin/San Antonio Residents Total Houston Visitors NY/Chicago/DC Residents* CY 2009 CY 2008

Results of the Research From Follow-up Survey: Opinions About Houston and Competitors

41 © TNS 2010 Demographics Characteristics vary slightly by residence: Non-Texas residents continue to report the highest income levels, possibly influenced by their higher education levels; thus, Texas residents report lower income and education levels Houston residents continue to have a slightly higher share of African-Americans while Texas residents outside of Houston claim slightly more with a Spanish heritage. QA. What is your age? // QB. Are you... (male/female) // Panel: Income, Ethnicity. 2010 Survey Demographics All Travelers Past Yr. O/N Leisure Visitors Houston Residents Other Texas Residents Non-Texas Residents Website Visitor Average Age 5352 535250 Average Hhld Income $68,300$73,000$72,600$63,100$81,700$72,800 % Male 34%38%34%33%38%35% % Married 646664 66 % College Grads+ (Males)353936324638 Ethnicity % Caucasian 8682 87 75 % Spanish Origin 6858311 % African-American 89107817 2009 Survey Average Age 504951 4952 Average Hhld Income $71,500$74,500$70,200$69,600$78,800$74,800 % Male 29% 28%27%32%26% % Married 64 66636166 % College Grads+ (Males)353834 4140 Ethnicity % Caucasian 86 82889081 % Spanish Origin 897103 % African-American 87116410

42 © TNS 2010 Residence City of residency: The majority of respondents (71%) live within Texas, similar to last year (68%) Most reside in Houston (32%), although a smaller share than in the last survey (45%), with more living in Dallas/Ft. Worth Except for a somewhat heavier emphasis on Dallas residents, those outside of Houston mimic the proportions of visitors coming from these DMA’s (Dallas 15%, Austin 8%, San Antonio 5%, New York/Chicago/DC 4%). City of residence comes from TNS panel. 2009 Survey 2010 Survey

43 © TNS 2010 Attribute importance Important attributes when choosing a destination: Those who have traveled to Houston overnight for leisure within the past year rank destination attributes similarly to other travelers; however: They give a slight edge to Houston’s cosmopolitan features (dining and culture/performing arts) About the same proportion emphasize family (family/children, something for everyone, family/roots there) as total travelers, but fewer deem that aspect important than last year. 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.

44 © TNS 2010 Attribute importance Important attributes when choosing a destination: Regardless of geography, travelers tend to agree on the important aspects of a travel destination, although Non-Texans: More often choose destinations for their cosmopolitan features (dining and culture/performing arts) Less often emphasize places to explore/sight-see by car. 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.

45 © TNS 2010 Preference for Houston Ranked by Total Importance (top 2 box) Q 2a/b. For each of the attributes mentioned below, please select the destinations you prefer... % selecting each city. Compared to last year, Houston tends to place slightly lower in preference but it maintains the general pattern of strengths: 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 the Money (89%) Friendly/Welcoming (82%) Lots to See/Do (82%) Reasonable Hotel/Meal Costs (82%) Good Service (79%) Weather/Climate (79%) Easily Accessible (77%) Variety of Dining Options (74%) Explore/Sight-see by Car (66%) Something for Everyone (61%) Experience History/Culture (59%) Accurate Website (59%) Prefer for O/N Leisure (54%) Good for Family/Children (47%) Easy to Use Website (44%) Culture/Performing Arts (37%) Culturally Diverse (36%) Friends/Relatives Recommend (35%) Good Reviews on Travel Websites (34%) Good Nightlife/Entertainment (30%) Family/Roots There (26%) Friendly to Alternate Lifestyles (22%) Accessible for Disabled (22%) Hip/Fashionable (14%)

46 © TNS 2010 Preference for each Texas city Ranked by Total Importance (top 2 box) Q 2a/b. For each of the attributes mentioned below, please select the destinations you prefer... % selecting each city. Travelers view Houston comparably with other major Texas cities on many destination attributes while San Antonio excels on most attributes, including those with the highest overall importance: Travelers view Houston as the best /tied for best place among these four cities on variety of dining options, cultural/performing arts, family/roots there, and accessible for disabled Houston trails San Antonio and sometimes Austin on the six overall most important attributes: good value for the money, friendly/welcoming, lots to see/do, reasonable costs, good service, and weather/climate In contrast, Houston usually slightly outperforms Dallas-Ft. Worth, especially on cultural diversity. Good Value for the Money (89%) Friendly/Welcoming (82%) Lots to See/Do (82%) Reasonable Hotel/Meal Costs (82%) Good Service (79%) Weather/Climate (79%) Easily Accessible (77%) Variety of Dining Options (74%) Explore/Sight-see by Car (66%) Something for Everyone (61%) Experience History/Culture (59%) Accurate Website (59%) Prefer for O/N Leisure (54%) Good for Family/Children (47%) Easy to Use Website (44%) Culture/Performing Arts (37%) Culturally Diverse (36%) Friends/Relatives Recommend (35%) Good Reviews on Travel Websites (34%) Good Nightlife/Entertainment (30%) Family/Roots There (26%) Friendly to Alternate Lifestyles (22%) Accessible for Disabled (22%) Hip/Fashionable (14%)

47 © TNS 2010 Preference for Houston vs. non-Texas cities 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. Relative to metropolitan cities outside of Texas, Houston’s image consistently ranks at or near the top on most of the 24 destination attributes: When it comes to good value for the money, the overall most important attribute in choosing a destination, Houston significantly outranks New Orleans, Atlanta, and Denver Houston leads or places near the leader on each of the top five attributes and on 14 others The largest gaps occur on: weather/climate (outranked by Denver), experience history/culture (outranked by New Orleans), good nightlife/entertainment (outranked by New Orleans), and friendly to alternate lifestyles (outranked by New Orleans). Good Value for the Money (89%) Friendly/Welcoming (82%) Lots to See/Do (82%) Reasonable Hotel/Meal Costs (82%) Good Service (79%) Weather/Climate (79%) Easily Accessible (77%) Variety of Dining Options (74%) Explore/Sight-see by Car (66%) Something for Everyone (61%) Experience History/Culture (59%) Accurate Website (59%) Prefer for O/N Leisure (54%) Good for Family/Children (47%) Easy to Use Website (44%) Culture/Performing Arts (37%) Culturally Diverse (36%) Friends/Relatives Recommend (35%) Good Reviews on Travel Websites (34%) Good Nightlife/Entertainment (30%) Family/Roots There (26%) Friendly to Alternate Lifestyles (22%) Accessible for Disabled (22%) Hip/Fashionable (14%)

48 © TNS 2010 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; non-Texas residents join them in the accolades: Past year overnight Houston leisure visitors prefer Houston as a destination more often than average for all travelers on every attribute Non-Houston Texas residents least prefer Houston as a destination on every attribute Houston residents make good advocates – consistently preferring Houston, especially for dining, a place with something for everyone, culture and performing arts, and cultural diversity. Good Value for the Money (89%) Friendly/Welcoming (82%) Lots to See/Do (82%) Reasonable Hotel/Meal Costs (82%) Good Service (79%) Weather/Climate (79%) Easily Accessible (77%) Variety of Dining Options (74%) Explore/Sight-see by Car (66%) Something for Everyone (61%) Experience History/Culture (59%) Accurate Website (59%) Prefer for O/N Leisure (54%) Good for Family/Children (47%) Easy to Use Website (44%) Culture/Performing Arts (37%) Culturally Diverse (36%) Friends/Relatives Recommend (35%) Good Reviews on Travel Websites (34%) Good Nightlife/Entertainment (30%) Family/Roots There (26%) Friendly to Alternate Lifestyles (22%) Accessible for Disabled (22%) Hip/Fashionable (14%)

49 © TNS 2010 Cities “good to visit” for non-resident visitors Evaluating city of residence: A destination’s own residents can be the best ambassadors for the city. 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 dining variety (73% Houston; 63% Other TX; 59% Non-TX), culturally diverse (67%; 50%; 50%), shopping (64%; 51%; 47%), and culture/ performing arts (57%; 43%; 41%). In contrast, Houston residents would not be as quick to recommend the city for a relaxing vacation or weather/climate. Attribute Importance (% 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 © TNS 2010 Cities “good to visit” for non-resident visitors Compared to last year, Houston’s populace scores the city similarly with a few differences: Houston residents see their city as increasingly culturally diverse (67% from 58%) However, they rank somewhat below last year on a few attributes, most notably: lots to see/do and a good place to explore/sight-see by car. Attribute Importance (% 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 © TNS 2010 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 places fourth among the seven cities tested, falling behind San Antonio, Austin, and Denver Residents of Texas cities outside Houston tend to rate Houston the lowest (43%) Past year overnight leisure Houston visitors (66%) and non-Texas residents (67%) rate the city higher than Houston or other Texas residents. NET Perfect + Good: 51% 54% 67%75% 58%45% 67% 51% 66%59%43%67% Perfect Good Average Poor Opinion of Each City Opinion of Houston

52 © TNS 2010 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? 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 slightly behind New Orleans and Dallas, as well as San Antonio, Austin, Denver Living in Texas, but outside of Houston, find the greatest fault with Houston (only 43% perfect/good). Opinion of Each City (Top Scores: Perfect/Good) Opinion of Houston (Top Scores)

53 © TNS 2010 Competitive cities visited Competitors: In a pattern similar to last year, past-five-year Houston visitors show interest in these other cities: San Antonio attracts many, reigning as the most popular among Houston residents and past year Houston visitors Dallas-Fort Worth claims the lead for non-Houston Texas residents Non-Texans “vote” for New Orleans. Cities Visited Ranked by Total Q5. Which of the following cities have you visited in the past 5 years? 2009 2010

54 © TNS 2010 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: All Texas cities rank above New Orleans and Atlanta San Antonio (72%) takes the lead in the value for the money image Houston (61%), Dallas (61%), Austin (63%), and Denver all vie for second, but Houston and Austin have a larger share of very high (9/10) ratings Non-Houston Texans assign lower ratings to Houston than other segments. NET Excellent + Good: 61% 61% 63%72% 55%48% 62% 61% 68%70%53%63% Each City Houston 9 – 10 Ratings 7 - 8 4 - 6 1 - 3

55 © TNS 2010 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: Most cities’ value for the money image remains fairly stable Atlanta (down 10 percentage points) and Houston (-7%-pts) drop the farthest, but as just shown, Houston remains in the second-tier group that challenges San Antonio for the lead. Each City (Top Scores: Excellent/Good) Houston (Top Scores)

56 © TNS 2010 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 ranks sixth, besting only Atlanta Among those who have visited Houston, non-Houston Texas residents rate their overall experience the lowest Non-Texans rate the experience nearly as highly as past-year overnight visitors. NET Excellent + Good: 68% 71% 79%85% 71%65% 80% 68% 77%71%64%74% Each City Houston 9 – 10 Ratings 7 - 8 4 - 6 1 - 3

57 © TNS 2010 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, most of the cities deteriorate on best overall experience for visitors: Atlanta drops the most (65% from 79%) New Orleans (-9%-pts.), Houston (-8%-pts), and Austin (-7-%-pts) all slip by about the same degree Non-Houston Texas residents are the most critical and decline the most from last year. Each City (Top Scores: Excellent/Good) Houston (Top Scores)

58 © TNS 2010 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, Dallas, New Orleans, and Denver closely compete Far fewer expect to re-visit Atlanta Non-Houston Texans show the lowest interest in returning to Houston. Each City Houston NET Very + Probably: 70% 72% 78%83% 71%57% 73% 70% 82%74%65%78% 9 – 10 Ratings 7 - 8 4 - 6 1 - 3

59 © TNS 2010 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: However, Atlanta visitors seem least likely to return Houston drops as well, but to a lesser degree Non-Houston Texans indicate the largest decline in interest. Each City (Top Scores: Very/Probably) Houston (Top Scores)

60 © TNS 2010 Likely to recommend city as destination By city: Visitors to San Antonio most often (would) recommend the city to friends and family Houston ranks sixth, surpassing only Atlanta (similar to Dallas) Recent leisure visitors and Houston residents most often recommend the city to others Texas residents outside of Houston are the least likely to recommend Houston. NET Very + Probably: 65% 67% 78% 84%71% 62%78%65% 74%72%59%68% 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 7 - 8 4 - 6 1 - 3

61 © TNS 2010 Likely to recommend city as destination Compared to last year, several cities slip somewhat: Houston (-7%-pts.), Atlanta (-8%-pts), and New Orleans (-7%-pts) take the largest hits from last year Texas residents outside of Houston remain the least likely to recommend Houston and deteriorate the most from last year. 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 © TNS 2010 Summary of opinions/ratings about Houston The majority (51%-68%) of all visitors to Houston perceive the city positively on each measure: Although at a lower level, the pattern mirrors last year, with the same two measures, positive experience in Houston (68%) and likelihood to return (70%), leading all others Overall opinion of Houston as a leisure destination shows the most room for improvement, both years. NET Top Four Ratings: 61% 68% 76%78% 72% 51%61%68%70%65% 9 – 10 Ratings 7 - 8 4 - 6 1 - 3 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. 2009 2010 Houston (Visited in Past 5 Years)

63 © TNS 2010 Next future visit to city More travelers expect to visit Houston within the next year than any other city: Further, within the next six months, almost twice as many travelers plan to visit Houston (42%) as Austin (23%) or San Antonio (22%) and far more than New Orleans, Atlanta, or Denver Geographically, the most likely group to visit Houston within the next six months lives in Houston. NET Within a Year: 2010: 54% 46%40%42%15%7%10%54%76%82%37%63% 2009: 70% 45% 41%41% 20%11% 9% 70% 87%81%58%65% 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

64 © TNS 2010 Next future visit to city Compared to last year, expected visits to Houston within the next year: Drop substantially from last year (54% from 70%) All other destinations place near the prior year level Non-Houston Texas residents report the least interest in returning soon. 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?

Results of the Research From Follow-up Survey: Advertising Awareness: General Advertising

66 © TNS 2010 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: Half (49%) of all travelers recall advertising for at least one of the featured cities (Houston, Dallas/Ft. Worth, Austin, San Antonio, New Orleans, Atlanta, or Denver), with San Antonio and New Orleans generating, by far, the greatest recall (31%) Houston ties Austin for fourth place (13%), slipping notably from last year The more distant markets, Denver (6%) and Atlanta (7%), have the lowest recall. Any Ad Awareness (n=1180)

67 © TNS 2010 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 the 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 more than twice the rate of non-Texans The patterns are the same as last year (higher for past year visitors and Houston residents, lower for others), but the level of awareness decreases for every group. Any Ad Awareness of Houston (n=1180)

68 © TNS 2010 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 (77%) Houston leads in radio recall, both in 2009 and 2010 Print Media: Houston builds average awareness (among these competitive destinations) from magazine ads and awareness from newspapers exceeds competitors Compared to last year, Houston awareness rises via newspapers and declines via television and now the two mediums almost match. Each City (2010 unless labeled otherwise) ELECTRONIC PRINT Q12. Abridged: For each of the cities, please indicate what type of media you recall seeing/hearing advertising.

69 © TNS 2010 Houston advertising awareness by media (unaided) Advertising recall within groups stays fairly consistent with a few exceptions: Electronic Media: Houston residents have the greatest recall of radio advertising, which suggests strong promotion within the city from local broadcast stations Print Media: Magazines and newspapers generate the highest recall for residents outside of Texas; the lower cost of print advertising makes it attractive when targeting a broad range of people. 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

70 © TNS 2010 General Advertising – By City Travelers may positively react to destination advertising in one of three listed ways: motivate them to seek more information, convince them to book a trip, or encourage them to stay longer/visit additional attractions: In overall positive impact, Austin (25%) leads while San Antonio (22%), Houston (21%) and Denver (21%) vie for second place San Antonio’s advertising convinces the most travelers to visit (9%); however, low scores across the board give all destinations room for improvement. More than any other behavior, advertising causes travelers to seek more information Ads do not affect everyone positively; potential visitors may decide not to visit (3% for Houston, not shown) or simply believe that ads do not influence them at all (76%, similar to other TNS studies). Each City (2010 unless labeled otherwise) Perceived impact of (unaided) advertising – each city Q13. Abridged: How has the advertising you have seen affected your leisure travel plans?

71 © TNS 2010 General Advertising – By Group Advertising must not only reach its audience but also have a positive impact: Houston reaps the largest benefits from advertising among past year overnight leisure visitors (30% claim a positive impact); Non-Texas residents follow (20%) Among most groups, ads primarily motivate travelers to seek more information; however, past year overnight leisure visitors primarily elect to lengthen their stay/visit more attractions. 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

Results of the Research From Follow-up Survey: Advertising Awareness: Specific Houston CVB Ads

73 © TNS 2010 Houston print ads Did you know - 1 Did you know - 2 ContMag ModLux Chicago Meeting in Houston

74 © TNS 2010 Houston print advertising awareness Q27. Below you will see 5 different print ads that advertise Houston as a leisure destination. Please indicate which, if any, of these ads you have seen before. Fewer travelers recall any of the specific Houston CVB print ads than last year: Aided awareness drops to 13% from 18% last year, with ContMag and ModLux Chicago gathering slightly higher awareness than the others Houston residents (15%) and past year overnight Houston visitors (19%) more likely recall a Houston CVB print ad than other groups. Awareness of Specific Houston CVB Print Ads (2010 unless labeled otherwise)

75 © TNS 2010 Opinions/reaction to Houston CVB print ads Overall, respondents remain relatively neutral in the opinions of the Houston CVB print ads: A large majority (84%) of travelers appear unaffected by the ads Almost two-thirds (63%) of the travelers neither like nor dislike the ads; a third (35%) liked them Nearly half (49%) do not believe the ads will affect their future visitation to Houston The proportion selecting the top two ratings remain similar to last year. NET Top Two Ratings 2010:15%35%21% 2009: 17% 40% 22% Top Rating Second Neutral Bottom 2 Ratings Summary of Opinion/Reaction to Houston CVB Print Ads Base: All (1,180) Q28a. Based on these print ads, how has your impression of Houston changed? Much more positive (5) to much more negative (1) Q28b. Overall, how much did you like these ads? Like them very much (5) to dislike very much (1) Q28c. Based on these print ads, 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).

76 © TNS 2010 Impression of Houston based on print ads 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 (16% somewhat more positive, 4% much more positive); Houston residents follow (11%, 5%) Non-Texans are the least affected by the ads (88% neutral). Much More Positive Somewhat More Neutral More Negative Reaction to Houston CVB Print Ads - Impression NET Positive: 2010:na15%20%16%15%12% 2009:17% na21% 20%13% 15% Q28a. Based on these print ads, how has your impression of Houston changed? Much more positive (5) to much more negative (1).

77 © TNS 2010 Likeability of Houston print ads Travelers who have visited or live in Houston find the ads the most likable: Past year overnight leisure visitors have the highest overall positive reaction to ads’ likeability (43%) Houston residents most frequently like the ads very much (14%) Overall, far fewer (2% vs. 9%) dislike the ads in 2010 than in 2009. Like Very Much Somewhat Neutral Dislike Ads Reaction to Houston CVB Print Ads - Likeability NET Positive: 2010:na35%43%37%34%36% 2009:40% na44% 45%36% 38% Q28b. Overall, how much did you like these ads? Like them very much (5) to dislike very much (1).

78 © TNS 2010 Print ad impact of taking vacations to Houston Overall, the print ads do not influence future visitation for the majority of travelers: Only about one in five (21%) believes that the ads will encourage them to visit Houston, very similar to last year (22%) As seen with the other ad measures, past year overnight leisure visitors to Houston continue to be most influenced by print advertising – over twice as many expect to visit Houston as a result of the ad (37%) than non-Houston Texas residents (16%). Extremely Likely Very Somewhat Not Likely Reaction to Houston CVB Print Ads – Influence on Future Vacation NET Positive: 2010:na21%37%24%16%32% 2009:22%na 33% 27%17% 19% Q28c. Based on these print ads, 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).

79 © TNS 2010 Houston TV commercial awareness Q30/Q30b. Have you seen this commercial before on TV? Houston residents and past-year visitors often remember the TV commercials: Houston residents (16%) and past year overnight leisure visitors (15%) most often notice the commercial, but even the lowest group (non-Houston Texans) places not far behind (11%) The commercials build more than twice as much recognition as last year (13% vs. 5%) The ZZ Top commercial places higher than the Lyle Lovett commercial for every group. Awareness of Specific Houston CVB TV Commercial (2010 unless labeled otherwise)

80 © TNS 2010 Opinions/reaction to Houston CVB TV commercials Overall opinions of the TV commercial are markedly more positive than the print ads: Houston’s TV ads improve perceptions much more often than the print ads (33% Lyle Lovett; 42% ZZ Top; 15% print) Most travelers like the ads (63% Lyle Lovett; 73% ZZ Top), roughly double print ads (35%) Relatively few travelers believe they would be more likely to visit Houston based on the ads, but television develops more interest than print (23% Lyle Lovett; 27% ZZ Top; 21% print ads). NET Top Two Ratings: 2010: 33% 63% 23%42%73%27% Top Rating Second Neutral Bottom 2 Ratings Summary of Opinion/Reaction to Houston CVB TV Commercials Base: 1,154 for Lyle Lovett; 1,170 for ZZ Top Q31a/b. Based on this commercial, how has your impression of Houston changed? Much more positive (5) to much more negative (1) Q31b/bb. Overall, how much did you like this commercial? Like them very much (5) to dislike very much (1) Q31cb. 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). Top 2 Ratings in 2009: 42% Impression 71% Likeability 30% Future Visitation Lyle Lovett ZZ Top

81 © TNS 2010 Impression of Houston based on TV commercial The commercials’ impact on impressions of Houston vary by ad: The ZZ Top ad builds a slightly more positive impression of Houston than the Lyle Lovett ad Although impressions vary between the commercials, the opinions of the groups are similar for each, except that past year overnight Houston visitors rate both commercials higher than other groups The ZZ Top ad gathers just as many high rates as last year’s commercial. Much More Positive Somewhat More Neutral More Negative Reaction to Houston CVB TV Commercial - Impression NET Positive: 2010: na 33%39% 32%34% 30% 42%47%42% 43%38% 2009: 42%42%46%41% 42%42% 42%46%41% 42%42% Q31a/b. Based on this commercial, how has your impression of Houston changed? Much more positive (5) to much more negative (1). Lyle Lovett ZZ Top 2009

82 © TNS 2010 Likeability of Houston CVB TV commercial Likeability measures also vary by ad: Two-thirds (63%) to three quarters (73%) of viewers find the commercial very to somewhat likeable The groups tend to praise the commercials similarly, with past year overnight visitors to Houston reacting most favorably ZZ Top places slightly ahead of last year’s commercial; Lyle Lovett somewhat behind. Like Very Much Somewhat Neutral Dislike Ads Reaction to Houston CVB TV Commercial - Likeability Q31b/bb. Overall, how much did you like this commercial? Like them very much (5) to dislike very much (1). NET Positive: 2010: na 63%69%65% 61%65% 73%76%74% 73%67% 2009: 71%71%75%73%71%70% 71%75%73%71%70% Lyle Lovett ZZ Top 2009

83 © TNS 2010 TV commercial impact of taking vacation to Houston Past year Houston visitors are the most likely expect to return based on the commercial: The two commercials lure previous overnight leisure visitors to Houston to about the same degree (38% Lyle Lovett; 41% ZZ Top), but both somewhat trail the results from last year (45%, not shown) Texas residents outside of Houston seem least influenced by the commercial (49% Lyle Lovett; 45% ZZ Top not likely). Extremely Likely Very Somewhat Not Likely Reaction to Houston CVB TV Commercial – Influence on Future Vacation Q31c/cb. Based on this commercial, how likely are you to take an overnight vacation or pleasure trip to Houston in the future? NET Positive: 2010: na23%38%28% 18%28% 27%41%32% 24%28% 2009: 30% 30%45%33%26%29% 30%45%33%26%29% Lyle Lovett ZZ Top 2009

84 © TNS 2010 Houston online ad awareness Q33/Q35. Have you seen this series of online ads before? Past year overnight Houston visitors notice the online ads more than other groups: Past year overnight leisure visitors (8%) most often notice at least one of the series of ads Houston residents (5%) rank second in awareness Non-Texans seldom notice the ads Awareness of Economy Stinks ads slightly outpace Haute Hip Hmmm. Awareness of Houston Online Ad Series Economy Stinks HHH

85 © TNS 2010 Opinions/reaction to Houston CVB online ads Positive opinions of the online ads place near the print ads, but well below the commercials: Houston’s online ads improve perceptions of Houston with the Economy Stinks (26%) placing higher and HHH (17%) placing near the print ads (15%), but both place substantially below the commercials (33% Lyle Lovett; 42% ZZ Top) Likeability follows the same pattern (40% Economy Stinks; 35% HHH; 35% print; 63% Lyle Lovett; 73% ZZ Top) Online ads encourage future visits at a similar to weaker level than the other mediums (20% Economy Stinks; 15% HHH; 21% print; 23% Lyle Lovett; 27% ZZ Top) Viewers rate Economy Stinks more highly than HHH on all three dimensions. NET Top Two Ratings: 26% 40% 20%17%35%15% Top Rating Second Neutral Bottom 2 Ratings Summary of Opinion/Reaction to Houston CVB Online Ads Base: All (1,180) Q34a/Q36a. Based on this series of banner ads, how has your impression of Houston changed? Positive (5) to negative (1) Q34b/Q36b. Overall, how much did you like these ads? Like them very much (5) to dislike very much (1) Q34c/Q36c. Based on this series on online ads, 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). Economy Stinks HHH (Haute Hip Hmmm)

86 © TNS 2010 Impression of Houston based on series of online ads The online ads’ impact on impressions of Houston stay relatively consistent across all groups: That said, past year overnight Houston visitors react more favorably to both ads The Economy Stinks ranks higher than HHH for all groups, but a smaller gap between the two occurs among Houston residents. Much More Positive Somewhat More Neutral More Negative Reaction to Houston CVB Online Ads - Impression NET Positive: 26%33% 24%27% 27% 17%21% 19%16% 15% Q34a/Q36a. Based on this series of banner ads, how has your impression of Houston changed? Much more positive (5) to much more negative (1). Economy Stinks HHH (Haute Hip Hmmm)

87 © TNS 2010 Likeability of Houston CVB online ads Likeability measures also show a consistent appeal to all groups: Roughly a third to half (34%-47%) of all groups find the online ads very or somewhat likeable As seen on other measures, Economy Stinks receives more praise than HHH Past year overnight Houston visitors rate both more highly than other groups Several dislike the ads (11% Economy Stinks; 16% HHH). Like Very Much Somewhat Neutral Dislike Ads Reaction to Houston CVB Online Ads - Likeability Q34b/Q36b. Overall, how much did you like these ads? Like them very much (5) to dislike very much (1). NET Positive: 40%47%38% 41%43% 35%41%35% 34%35% Economy Stinks HHH (Haute Hip Hmmm)

88 © TNS 2010 Online ads impact of taking vacation to Houston Travelers who have already been to Houston often expect to return based on the online ads: A quarter (26% HHH extremely/very likely) to a third (31% Economy Stinks) of past overnight leisure visitors to Houston expect to return based on the online ads, somewhat fewer than for the print ads (37%), the Lyle Lovett commercial (38%), or the ZZ Top commercial (41%) Texans (Houston or not) seem least influenced by the online ads (48% Economy Stinks not likely; HHH 51%-57% ). Extremely Likely Very Somewhat Not Likely Reaction to Houston CVB Online Ads – Influence on Future Vacation Q34c/Q36c. Based on this series of online ads, how likely are you to take an overnight vacation or pleasure trip to Houston in the future? NET Positive: 20%31%22% 19%18% 15%26%19% 13%16% Economy Stinks HHH (Haute Hip Hmmm)

89 © TNS 2010 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, regardless of group Thus, although overall awareness of the ads appears stronger in Houston (27%) than elsewhere (20% - 21%), the actual ability of the ads to lure tourists is quite similar proportionately Compared to last year, Houston advertising awareness rises among all groups. 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 three of the measures, by definition, includes travelers, so the effectiveness looks much stronger than would be expected (Past Year Houston Visitors, Non-Texas Residents, and Total). Total advertising impact on Houston visitation NET Aware: 2010:na23%29%27%21%20% 2009:19%19%24%26% 16% 11% Aware, Pos. Impact, and Visited Aware and Positive Impact Aware Only Q14. Please indicate the total number of overnight leisure trips you have made to the Houston area in the past 12 months. Q27. Below you will see 5 different print ads that advertise Houston as a leisure destination. Which have you have seen before. Q30/Q30b. Have you seen this commercial before on TV (Lyle Lovett/ZZ Top)? Q34a/Q36a. Have you seen this series of online ads before (Economy Stinks/HHH – Haute Hip Hmmm)? Q28c/Q31c/Q31cb/Q34c/Q36c. Based on these ads, how likely are you to take an overnight vacation or pleasure trip to Houston in the future?

Results of the Research From Follow-up Survey: Website Usage

91 © TNS 2010 General Website Features Many travelers find it important to research their travel destination, especially those with which they are unfamiliar. Travel destination websites provide a wealth of information whenever a traveler needs it. Results indicate that, regardless of group, most travelers look for the same things in a destination website: Ranked as 1-3: Very similar to last year, 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 leading slightly, probably impacted somewhat by the economy as travelers want to know how to best spend their travel dollar. Most important features on website % Rank (2010 unless labeled otherwise) 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

92 © TNS 2010 General Website Features Most respondents rank the already listed website features as most important to them in a travel website. Unaided feature characteristics vary widely, but include more informational content and website functionality: Other important features on Websites Q13b. What other feature is important on travel destination websites? Other Features Cited as Important: 2010 A good local map; maps; interactive map (4) Easy to get there; Ease of travel to destination (3) Something for children to do/ suggestions for kids/ family (3) Price, cost (2) Safety (2) Travel information – directions, local airports, public transit (2) Accessibility for disabled people Ability to relax Bundle travel deals Activities; hiking possibilities and walking trails Sports Locations: RV campground, resorts, Walmart Supercenter Ease of use, simplicity, speed of website Times that events are open Weather patterns Unbiased reviews of hotels, restaurants, places to visit – need a good way to make choices besides just providing information Local history Cruises Number of mentions = 1 unless in parens (#) Other Features Cited as Important: 2009 Weather Ease of use/navigation Local maps Information tailored to the business traveler

93 © TNS 2010 Houston websites visited Q19. Which of the following websites for the Greater Houston Convention and Visitors Bureau, if any, have you visited in the past 12 months? Most website users are unsure which link they used to access the Greater Houston CVB website: VisitMyHouston and VisitHoustonTexas lead in usage Travelers rarely recall visiting VisitaHoustonTexas, HoustonReunions, or AskVeronica Not surprisingly, those who have visited are the most likely to have used the website, probably as they plan their trip. Houston (.com) Websites

94 © TNS 2010 Houston website discovery Q20. Please indicate how you found out about the Greater Houston Convention and Visitors Bureau’s website? * Very small sample; treat as qualitative only Most travelers find the Greater Houston CVB website via the Internet: Regardless of residency, both Texas and non-Texas website users most often find the website through a search engine or while browsing the Internet Non-Texas residents are equally likely to find the site by either path (39% search engine vs. 39% browsing) Conversely, Texas residents more often find the site from a search engine. Website Visitors’ Source of Information (2010 unless labeled otherwise)

95 © TNS 2010 Characteristics/features of Houston’s website Q21. How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements regarding Greater Houston CVB website’s characteristics or features? Website users agree with most statements about the GHCVB website’s characteristics or features: Houston’s website performs exceedingly well on communicating and strengthening Houston’s image, promoting local attractions, and ease of use Areas with the most room for improvement tend to center around functionality: getting feedback from website representatives, ability to book/purchase, and forwarding information to others – similar to last year. NET Agree: 2010: 74%74%73% 68%68%68%67%65%63%63% 62% 2009: 71%70%69%71%68%70%60%61%66%65%63% NET Agree: 2010:62% 61%59%58%55%55%51%49%47%47%41% 2009:60%64%61%65%55%59%55%50%53%54%48% Website Characteristics/Features

96 © TNS 2010 What the website says about Houston Q22. What does the Greater Houston Convention and Visitors Bureau website tell you about Houston? From the website, most users “take away” the variety of activities available in Houston: Travelers perceive lots to see/do as the main message of the Houston website with something for everyone, family activities and museums, cultural diversity, and friendly people completing the top five A few images drop substantially from last year: friendly people, culture/performing arts, exciting urban experiences, good value for the money, hip/fashionable, and uniqueness – unlike any place else. Website’s Message Base: 114 GHCVB Visitors

97 © TNS 2010 Satisfaction with Houston website Satisfaction levels of the website increases from last year (84% from 78%): More than four out of five (84%) website users are very satisfied to somewhat satisfied with the website Non-Texans seem slightly more critical, but the sample is very small and should be viewed as qualitative only. NET Satisfied: 2010:na84%86%78% 2009:78% na 76% 82% * Very small sample; treat as qualitative only Very Satisfied Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Not Very Dissatisfied Q23. What is your overall satisfaction with the Greater Houston CVB website? Satisfaction with Houston Website

98 © TNS 2010 Houston’s website competitive comparison Half (51%) of Houston’s website visitors deem it as much better or somewhat better than similar websites for city destinations; very few rate others better. NET Better: 2010:na51%51%52% 2009:54% na 56% 47% * Very small sample; treat as qualitative only Much Better Somewhat Comparable Somewhat Worse Much Worse Q24. How well does the Greater Houston CVB’s website compare to similar websites for city destinations? Houston Website’s Competition

99 © TNS 2010 In general, most website users express overall satisfaction with the site, even when reflecting on possible improvements. While suggestions vary, the desire for more coupons/discount packages, special offers/savings, keeping events up-to-date, and faster website emerge as the strongest themes. Website features to improve Q25. What features or sections should the website improve? Website Features to Improve: 2009 More coupons/discount packages How to get around the city/avoid construction Weather Keep users updated on current events Website Features to Improve: 2010 Coupons, discounts, reviews of places to go (2) More special offers; savings (2) More up-to-date; Houston changes every day (2) Current events; Monthly section – events for the month (2) Faster speed (2) Front Page does not contain enough guiding information Things to do Ability to narrow interests; e.g., free events, family events, etc. More insider information Accurate prices Better information on downtown tunnels Links to activities More links to lodging/restaurants by area Cleaner site – too much color/clutter Cost effectiveness of safe places to stay Kid friendly Handicapped accessible places More videos/pictures More information on restaurants, food, entertainment Less sports info and more grandparent/grandchildren info Number of mentions = 1 unless in parens (#)

100 © TNS 2010 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 more than twice as often as convincing them to go or lengthening stay/adding attractions The website dose not affect everyone positively; potential visitors may decide not to visit (6% for total website visitors, not shown) or simply believe that the website did not influence them at all (35%) More website visitors note that the website motivates them to seek more information this year than last (42% vs. 35%). Perceived impact of Houston’s website Impact of Houston’s Website (2010 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?

Results of the Research Houston Visitors: Choices and Characteristics

102 © TNS 2010 Trips to Houston Q14. Please indicate the total number of leisure trips you have made to the Houston area in the past 12 months. Total 2009 (n=692) Total 2010 (n=1,180) Past Yr. O/N Leisure Visitors (n=471) Houston Residents (n=373) Other Texas Residents (n=664) Non-Texas Residents (n=143) Day Trips NET Any 45%40%55%68%29%23% Mean (Inc. 0) 2.92.73.36.70.90.7 Mean (Excl. 0) 6.46.76.19.93.0 Overnight (O/N) Trips NET Any 47%40%100%33%37%73% Mean (Inc. 0) 1.81.43.52.01.02.1 Mean (Excl. 0) 3.83.5 5.92.62.8 Logical Patterns Occur for Types of Trips to Houston: Living within close proximity to city events and attractions, Houston residents take 10 times the average number of day trips to Houston as residents outside of Texas and seven times as many as other Texans. Although fewer stay in Houston overnight, Houston residents who do spend the night there stay most often (5.9 times), possibly with friends or family that they likely have in the area Visitation declines slightly from last year, except day trippers who visit at least once visit slightly more often (6.7 vs. 6.4 times).

103 © TNS 2010 Recency of last overnight leisure trip to Houston By design, non-Texas residents must have visited Houston in the past five years, either for business or leisure with no overnight stay required. That said: About half (46%) of non-Houston Texas residents have stayed overnight in Houston within the past two years Similarly, half (49%) of Houston residents have spent the night in the last two years while over a fourth (28%) claim never to have taken an overnight leisure trip to Houston. NET: Within Past 2 Years: 2010:na51%100%49%46%84% 2009: 62% na100% 51% 65% 84% Q15. When was your last overnight leisure trip to the Houston area? Within Past 12 Months 1 – 2 Years Ago 3 – 5 Years Ago 6+ Years Ago Never

104 © TNS 2010 Timing by Month A gradual increase in Houston visitation occurs throughout the spring and peaks in the summer months (June through August), followed by a sharp drop in fall: Houston residents take an overnight trip to the city most often in June – the same month travel peaks among all visitors Peak visitation noted in 2010 occurs earlier than in 2009, probably impacted by the timing of the survey (surveyed in June in 2010; mid-August in 2009). Visitors residing outside of Texas enjoy the city more consistently in the early winter and spring than most Houston visitors. Timing of last visit to Houston Q16. What was the month of your last overnight leisure trip to the Houston area?

105 © TNS 2010 Overnight spending amounts to visit Houston Important points from the overnight spending categories for the group include: Spending more on lodging and transportation, non-Texas residents double the spending level of their Texas resident counterparts. Even when excluding transportation to and from Houston, non-Texas residents still spend notably more than the average Houston traveler Overnight visitors living in Texas but outside of Houston spend the least overall Total spending places near the same level as in 2009 ($496 vs. $479). Total Travel Party Overnight Spending on Last Trip to Houston (Column Height Impacted by Expenditure) Q17. Please estimate the dollars your travel party spent for each of the categories below on your last overnight leisure trip to Houston? 2010: na$496$580$453$420$888Average Total Spending na$376$435$383$338$520Average Total Spending exc. Travel To/Fro Houston 2009: $479na$524$438$380$741Average Total Spending $365na$404$359$304$492Average Total Spending exc. Travel To/Fro Houston

106 © TNS 2010 Satisfaction with Houston visit Houston satisfies a large majority of its overnight leisure visitors: Past year leisure visitors report the highest satisfaction ratings (75% extremely satisfied/very satisfied) As seen consistently in image and satisfaction levels, Texas residents outside of Houston tend to rate Houston lower than the other groups; the same pattern occurs for satisfaction Except for Houston residents, all groups rate their satisfaction below last year. NET Top Four Ratings (7-10): 2010: na62%75%71%55%74% 2009: 71% na 82% 70%67% 78% Extremely Very Somewhat Not Pleased Houston Q18. Overall, how pleased were you with your last overnight leisure trip to the Houston area?

Results of the Research Final Comments

108 © TNS 2010 General Comments T he majority of travelers commend Houston as a travel destination. Most comments center around Houston as a great place for families, either to visit family or travel there together: “Great diversity, great food, lots of fun.” “Houston has class, culture, and offers a fun atmosphere at a modest price.” “I love Houston. I will relocate there in a couple of years.” “We just returned from 10 days there with my daughter and family – visited lots of places and really liked the friendly people everywhere.” “History and modern merging in one place.” Comments regarding Houston Q32. Please share below any additional comments you may have regarding Houston, TX as a travel destination? Common comments regarding Houston: 2010 Positive “It’s a clean and safe city” “I have family there” “Have friends there” “Great city – food, history, location” “We go crabbing and eat seafood and Tex-Mex” “Did not realize there was so much culture” “Beach is a short drive” “Love the attractions, prices, people; hate the climate” “Houston is fabulous, diverse, entertaining” “Museums and concert halls are awesome” “I like Houston; I enjoy it every time I go” Negative “Houston is a dirty, dangerous city” “I hate the traffic” “Too hot, too humid, jammed freeways, too expensive, too dangerous/violent” “Been there – will only go in winter” “Car-dependent city, polluted, and HOT” “Traffic is a horror” “Been there, done that, not going back” “Not much to do with little children” “’Economy stinks’ – at first glance, made me think ‘Houston stinks’”

Name of TNS contact john.packer@tns-global.com

July 2010 Houston Visitor Profile Calendar Year 2009.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "July 2010 Houston Visitor Profile Calendar Year 2009."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

July 2010 Houston Visitor Profile Calendar Year 2009.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "July 2010 Houston Visitor Profile Calendar Year 2009."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback