SARAH SPENCER-WORKMAN, LEED AP
Master of Regional Planning
Ms. Spencer-Workman has extensive leadership experience in providing
(Emphasis in Economic Development &
Public-Private Partnerships) government affairs services for local Colorado jurisdictions, including
University of Massachusetts, Amherst best management practices for implementation of “green” government
Bachelor of Environmental Design standards and economic development feasibility analysis. She possesses
(Emphasis in Land Use and Sustainable 15 years of sustainable planning. She has worked with public sector
University of Colorado, Boulder
clients at the local, regional and state levels in strategic and
Trained Mediator in the State of Colorado implementation roles. Sarah has valued experience in developing public
Leadership in Energy and Environmental private partnerships and recognizes the needs and roles of both parties.
Design (LEED) Accredited Professional She brings a working knowledge of the most recent funding
opportunities available through stimulus dollars, grants and private
Chair of ULI Sustainable Communities
investment that may complement any future planning efforts in today’s
Committee, Colorado fiscal environment with specific focus on sustainable economics.
Urban Land Institute (ULI)
United States Green Building Council
Advocacy Chair for Green Schools
Committee, USGBC Colorado
USGBC LEED Neighborhood Development
Member of EPA Climate Communities
Past Planning Commissioner for the Town
American Planning Association (APA)
TEACHING / LECTURES
Capitol Hill Presentation to Congressional
Members from Colorado regarding Green
Building Standards for incorporation into
Waxman-Markey Climate Bill US Green
Building Council, Washington DC,
‘Navigating the Entitlement Process for
both the Public and Private Sector” Rocky
Mountain Land Use Institute, June 2006
‘Understanding Private Sector
Development Thought Process”
Department of Local Affairs Smart Growth
’10 Myths of Sustainable Development’,
teaching lecture University of Colorado,
Graduate School of Architecture and
Planning March 2009
‘Empowering Communities to Use
Renewable Energy Resources’ LEED
Neighborhood Development Forum, April
‘The Power of Communities: Carbon
Markets & Renewable Energy through
Community Connectivity’, USGBC
Sustainability 2009 Conference, May 2009
‘Climate Change and Sustainable
Development Resources, Tools &
Strategies for Communities’ Public Leaders
& Elected Officials Sustainable
Development Workshop- ULI, Denver,
‘Show Me the Money’ Presentation on
Finding Stimulus Money and other green
finance options, NAIOP Green Series
Event, Denver, July 2009
SARAH SPENCER-WORKMAN, LEED AP
Presentation: 30-40 minutes
“Addressing Economic Vitality in Your Community”
This presentation will speak to the following:
- Economic vitality is linked to policies and priorities
- Policy Themes
o Direct and Indirect Measures
New community investment
Cost of services
Efficiency and effectiveness of programs
Financial return to investors and community for public and private
- Integrated Thinking
o The Role of Solution Multipliers : With integrated systems thinking, one action
can lead to multiple benefits.
- Getting Direction
- Defining the City’s and Economic Development Partners Roles: Spheres of Influence
- Making It Happen: Where to Start? (Case Examples)
Q/A: 5-10 mins
SWOT Exercise with Partners: 1 hour
“Defining the roles of the City and its partners in
creating economic vitality”
CITY OF LONGMONT
EXISTING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES & PROGRAMS
The City of Longmont has always recognized how important economic development and new
jobs are to the community’s prosperity and overall quality of life. The City has a history of using
a variety of programs to assist the private sector in making decisions to expand or locate in
Longmont. The following ordinances, plans and programs are currently being used to provide
some form of “public” assistance to new and existing commerce and industry.
Development Fee Rebate Ordinance – Adopted in 1988, this ordinance enables new and
expanding industrial developments to receive up to a 30% rebate of some of the fees collected
at the time of issuing a building permit. If special circumstances exist, 100% of building permit
fees can be rebated by the City Council. The only fees not eligible to be waived are those
necessary to retire debt for capital improvements (i.e., water, sewer, storm drainage). To date,
about $2,400,000 of certain building permit fees have been waived or rebated.
Personal Property Tax Rebate Ordinance – Adopted in 2007, this ordinance allows a 50%
rebate of personal property taxes for new and expanding industry to encourage new primary
jobs with wages above the Boulder County median. Additional amounts could be rebated
through a formal request of the City Council
Sales and Use Tax Exemption – Exempts businesses new to Longmont (for the first two
years) from paying the City 2.95% sales and use tax on the purchase or use of measurement
and inspection equipment or research and development equipment.
Exempts all Longmont businesses from paying the City 2.95% sales and use tax on the
purchase or use of machinery and machine tools with a cost in excess of $1,000 to be used in
Longmont directly and exclusively in manufacturing tangible personal property.
Planned Unit Development Ordinance – Allows density bonuses and reduction of park fees
for those projects proposing to construct amenities in addition to what are normally required.
Downtown Development Authority Fees/ Developers Incentive Program (DIP)– All
City fees collected by the City on projects located within the Longmont Downtown Development
Authority are given to the LDDA to be used for public improvements or façade improvements in
downtown Longmont. Over $230,000 has been given to the DDA to date. The DIP grant
program, administered by the LDDA, enables an owner of small business to receive up to a
50% grant for the purpose of installing required public improvements. About $24,000 annually
is allocated for this program.
Downtown Development Authority—Façade Improvement Program--- The Façade
Improvement Program is intended to encourage larger scale redevelopment projects in the
downtown area by using tax increment investments by the LDDA. Funding is available to
property and business owners for eligible building facades and public improvements. The
amount available depends on how successful a project is in meeting certain criteria and the
project’s projected annual tax increment. The City staff administers the program for the LDDA.
To date, $1,300,000 has been budgeted for the program.
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) – The City can use a portion of its annual
Block Grant funds to finance capital improvements that benefit economic development
activities. The City has made about $70,000 available to the Downtown Development Authority
for the purpose of providing no interest/low interest loans to businesses wanting to improve the
interiors or exteriors of their buildings.
Longmont Area Economic Council (LAEC) Support – Since 1981, the City has given a total
of $2,615,762 to the Longmont Area Economic Council to assist in its efforts to promote and
attract commerce and industry to Longmont.
Longmont Urban Renewal Authority (LURA) – The City Council serves as the governing
board ands considers using Tax Increment Financing to assist property owners in redeveloping
certain underutilized properties. LURA has approved two urban renewal plans; the 300 acre
area between the Sugar Factory and Flour Mill and the 150 acre Twin Peaks Mall area. Both
plans encourage mixed use development projects to revitalize those portions of the community.
Private Activity Bond – Formerly called Industrial Development Revenue Bonds, this program
allows a developer to finance the construction, acquisition and expansion of manufacturing
facilities through the use of tax exempt bonds resulting in a much lower cost to the developer.
The City annually receives about $3.8 million from the State Housing Finance Agency for the
Special Improvement Districts (e.g. Business Improvement Districts, Metropolitan
Districts) – The City has an Ordinance allowing the use of Special Improvement Districts by
property owners to provide infrastructure financed by low interest, tax-exempt bonds.
Capital Improvement Program – Annually, the City spends millions of dollars to construct
capital projects that have improved the City’s infrastructure and support overall economic
development activities throughout the community.
Art in Public Places Ordinance – The City Council established a program of requiring 1% of
public sector construction costs of projects over $50,000 to be used to purchase and locate
works of art on public land. To date, about $1,500,000 has been contributed to this program.
ECONOMIC VITALITY PROGRAMS
Longmont Economic Gardening Initiative (LEGI) - The LEGI program provides training,
data, and strategic planning assistance through a partnership of local economic development
agencies with the City acting as the umbrella organization. The services or information are free
or available at a minimal cost and are open to all City of Longmont businesses.
J:\CIVIC\Economic Development\POWER\Econ Dev Incentives-Programs.doc 2
Business Start-Up Grant (BSUG) - The purpose is to encourage new sales tax generating
storefront businesses in non-residential zoning districts. The program provides a
reimbursement grant up to $2,000 for legitimate start-up costs to qualified applicants.
Small Business Lending Program – The program provides access to capital for businesses
that are having difficulty obtaining convention bank financing. The program will provide
business loans up to $50,000 covering typical small business needs, micro loans up to $5,000,
and gap funding for owner-occupied building purchases or expansions. The program is funded
with Community Development Block Grant allocations and matched through a lending partner.
Tourism & Events Grant – The goal of this grant is to help build Longmont as a destination
for visitors by generating new sales tax revenue through tourism, events and related activities.
Grants are funded with revenue received through the City’s Lodgers’ Tax. The Tourism &
Events Grants are competitive and subject to the availability of tax revenue.
Summer Concert Series - The City has partnered with the Longmont Downtown
Development Authority to develop a Downtown Summer Concerts Series funded with revenue
from the City’s Lodger’s Tax.
Shop Longmont Campaign – The goal of the Shop Longmont campaign is to establish an
advertising and educational program that leads to reinvesting in the community through
conscience purchasing patterns based upon a consistent and easily identifiable message. It is
envisioned that Shop Longmont will represent an umbrella idea that compliments other
programs such as the Longmont Downtown Development Authority’s gift cards, and nondescript
efforts that promote minority businesses and encourage using local services.
Business Outreach Team – The City is developing a Business Outreach Team to proactively
connect with the retail and service business base in Longmont. The program will feature a
team consisting of Economic Development Department staff and volunteering partners using
Synchronist software to survey and compile data for to help analyze issues and provide
Development Review Process – The City has established a Development Services Center as
a “one stop” location for the private sector to obtain all building permits. Staff from all
applicable city departments have offices at 385 Kimbark Ave. to more effectively handle all
development related permit applications. The City’s development code also allows for the
concurrent processing of multiple applications needed to obtain a building permit (e.g.
annexation, subdivision, planned unit development), typically resulting in reduced processing
The City Council has implemented over 50 recommendations from a special citizens’ task force
and other focus groups regarding the City’s fees and regulations which were deemed necessary
to stay competitive with other Front Range communities. The current development code has
J:\CIVIC\Economic Development\POWER\Econ Dev Incentives-Programs.doc 3
been updated to reflect additional modifications to ensure the efficient processing of quality
Positive Staff Relations – The City administration believes that the way in which a
government’s staff works with the development community can create a healthy business
atmosphere. Time spent by the staff explaining the regulations, collaborating with property
owners and negotiating within predetermined guidelines fosters a positive relationship with the
private sector and demonstrates that Longmont staff is committed to assisting the “customer”
and getting projects quickly approved consistent with City regulations.
Mixed Land Uses – The City encourages mixed use developments that combine residential
and non-residential uses. This type of development is considered to be more sustainable, helps
generate additional jobs and revenues, and affords residents the opportunity to live, work and
shop in the same neighborhood. Mixed use developments can occur in areas of the community
where mixed land uses are designated and/or in areas that have been identified for
redevelopment opportunities. In addition to a mixed use land designation in the comprehensive
plan, the City also adopted a mixed use zoning district that can be used either as base district
or an overlay district to facilitate mixed use development.
Quality of Life – Identifying and measuring a community’s quality of life is a difficult task due
to diverse individual perspectives. The City Council has adopted specific quality of life
benchmarks to guide its decisions regarding the community’s future growth and development.
These benchmarks illustrate Longmont’s ability to provide adequate community services.
Housing costs, school capacity, incidence of crime, traffic, and pollution are all monitored to
help determine the impact that growth has on Longmont’s quality of life. This information is
available by contacting the Economic Development Department, 303-651-8320.
J:\CIVIC\Economic Development\POWER\Econ Dev Incentives-Programs.doc 4
Goals for Economic Development Partners-2010
Longmont Area Economic Council (LAEC) - The mission of the Longmont Area
Economic Council as a whole is to enhance the economic well being of the Longmont
area by actively supporting the creation and preservation of quality, primary jobs. LAEC
is a public/private partnership, governed by a Board of Directors made up of
representatives from primary employers, the City of Longmont, and the business
community at large. The City hopes to more actively engage with the LAEC in primary
employer visits and assist in positioning Longmont for new opportunities for primary job
Longmont Entrepreneurial Network (LEN) - LEN is innovative technology focused
incubator that provides entrepreneurs access to key resources that accelerate their
business development and growth leading to financial sustainability. The City hopes to
encourage LEN in the recruitment of more clean energy businesses and explore ways of
providing LEN additional resources through existing Economic Vitality programs.
Small Business Development Center (SBDC) - The SBDC focuses on three areas of
support for small business: long and short term training, counseling, and access to
resources. The SBDC helps small businesses analyze marketing and growth issues, set
reasonable short and long-term goals, obtain financing, and prosper in competitive
markets. The City is working with SBDC to provide targeted training classes free of
charge to Longmont businesses which also meets a requirement for the Business Start-
Up Grant program. The City is also exploring ways to provide additional minority
business assistance through the SBDC expansive resource connections.
Longmont Area Visitors Association (LAVA) - LAVA’s mission is “to support,
promote and market the historic, cultural and recreational activities which exist with a
30-mile radius, with Longmont, Colorado at the center, to leisure travelers, meeting and
convention planners, existing conventions and visitors, local groups and businesses with
convention possibilities in order to enhance the economic well being of our region.” The
City will be working closely with LAVA to attract events, conventions, and sporting
activities to increase overnight stays among tourist and result in more Lodger’s Tax
Latino Chamber of Commerce – In an attempt to strengthen the City’s partnership
with the Latino business community, Economic Development Department staff serves in
a liaison role with the organization. This arrangement helps to support Latino-owned
businesses by introducing available resources and improving communication and
outreach capabilities. In 2010, staff will be working with the Chamber to identify growth
opportunities for new and existing Latino-owned businesses.
Longmont Area Chamber of Commerce--The Chamber is a catalyst organization
ensuring the Longmont area is a vibrant place to live, work and play, through
responsible commercial growth and providing a unified voice for the business
community. The City of Longmont has been a formal member of the Chamber for
decades and participates in a variety of activities such as the Economic Summit,
Leadership Longmont and Business After Hours activities.
Longmont Downtown Development Authority (LDDA) -- In 1982, the
Longmont City Council and the Longmont electorate created the Longmont Downtown
Development Authority (LDDA) to revitalize the City’s Downtown commercial core.
The LDDA encompasses 242 acres Downtown. Since 1982, more than $45 million in
public and private funds have been invested in new and renovated buildings in the
Longmont Downtown District.
The City Councilperson sits on the LDDA Bd. to ensure close coordination in a variety of
programs and activities ranging from the Festival on Main St to the Façade Improvement
A Review and Recommendation Report
Longmont City Council
January 5, 2010
This decade has seen some unprecedented economic declines for Colorado and for Boulder County.
The 2000’s have been termed the “lost” decade in terms of job growth. Consider what we have seen
during this decade in terms of jobs:
National (Business week, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor Statistics)
• Total US Employment is virtually unchanged since Jan. 2000 at roughly 130M
• The US economy is on track to have grown by less than 2% annually over the decade
• The increase in US GDP over the last decade is the lowest since the great depression
• Total return on the S&P 500 from 1999 to the present is -9%
Colorado (Business Economic Outlook, CO Dept. of Labor & Emp., Current Emp. Survey)
• This decade has produced fewer jobs than any beginning with the 1970’s
• Since 1939, there have been only 5 years with job losses in Colorado, with 3 in this decade.
• Between 2001 and 2010, only 23, 600 net jobs were created in Colorado
• Colorado lost an estimated 100,000 jobs in 2009, 35% more than in 2002 & 2003 combined
• Colorado is expected to lose another 3,200 jobs in 2010
Boulder County (CO Dept. of Labor & Emp., Current Emp. Survey)
• From 2000 - 2008, the State (6.2%) has grown jobs twice as fast as Boulder County (3%)
• From January through November 2009, job loss has been larger in Boulder County (-4.7%),
on a percentage basis, than in Colorado (-3.8%)
Longmont (Economic Council)
• 161 net primary jobs have been lost between 2003 (post tech bust) and 2008
• Several hundred more losses are expected in 2009
Jobs Created in Colorado
1970- 1980- 1990- 2000-
1979 1989 1999 2009
In addition, the economic pain was not felt as severely for most of this decade because housing
appreciation replaced wage income for many households through mortgaging of this inflated equity.
However, this income bubble burst in 2008 and sent the economy into the worst recession since the
Not much in the way of good news. Still, in every market condition there is opportunity. Much of
what that means in tough economic times is product improvement and positioning (Longmont is our
product from an economic perspective). There are a number of players involved in Longmont’s
market position, and at various levels. Among these are business support and attraction groups
(Economic Council, Chamber, DDA, LAVA), the private sector (companies, developers and building
owners, real estate brokers) and city government.
So given the complexities of growth and the realities of the market, what is needed? In practical terms
we must ensure that we have the infrastructure (physical and business) to fulfill the needs of existing
and prospective businesses, that our business environment is as friendly as possible, and that we
commit adequate resources towards promoting our competitive advantages. The following are
observations and suggestions related to improving our product and the support that goes along with it.
• The City of Longmont has done an excellent job of providing infrastructure that is adequate
to accommodate economic growth including water, wastewater, electric, and transportation.
• Longmont’s assets are strong in the areas of workforce talent, cost of doing business and a
business friendly environment.
• Longmont does not have a rail served business park and is thus excluded from competing
for companies looking for this infrastructure. Therefore, the Economic Council is
advocating for a designation of a rail served business park and will make a formal
presentation to Council very soon regarding this need.
• Longmont’s inventory of space for primary employers is predominantly flex space. This
has advantages and disadvantages related to the type of space companies are seeking.
However, this remains a function of the private sector and while the Economic Council has
explored influencing the private sector to develop certain types of product (e.g. Class A
office space), the driver in this process will be market based when economic conditions
• City staff has done a good job of being responsive to primary employer needs in
terms of timing and flexibility. The Economic Council has enjoyed a good working
relationship with City staff on regulatory matters. However, we recommend regular,
comprehensive feedback from all end users to document their experience and
satisfaction. This process would need to be done by an outside organization on a
confidential basis to be valid.
• We recommend establishment a development coordinator position within the City to be a
single point of contact for all applicants to improve coordination and provide and advocacy
position within the City. There should also be focus on limiting changes to building plans
to a single meeting. Changes are an inevitable part of the development process and codes
and standards related to safety must be met, but multiple “bites at the apple” should be
• A change in permit fees should be considered. A recent study by CSU found that
Longmont’s fee structure was among the highest in the Denver metro/northern Colorado
area. This can act as a competitive disadvantage.
• It is important that adequate resources to promote our area be provided within the context
of budgetary limitations. Choices about where and how City dollars are spent become even
more important in tough economic times. Creation of new programs without adequate
scrutiny siphon dollars away from programs that meet the economic goals of the City.
• New programs that are created should be scrutinized to ensure that there is adequate
demand for services, that the services are targeted toward City priorities, that they are not
duplicative and that they pass muster for their ability to meet program purposes. We
recommend a review panel of business assistance professionals be established as an
advisory committee to staff and Council to review proposed new business support
Longmont Area Visitors Association
Economic Development Presentation
Longmont City Council Retreat
January 22-23, 2010
The Longmont Area Visitors Association enters its second full year of operation as a non-profit
organization charged with attracting groups, events, meetings and visitors to the area for the purpose of
generating tax revenue. In addition, LAVA is proud to be an active team member of the City of
Longmont and area partners’ economic development initiatives to attract business, jobs and new
development to the area.
In previous presentation and discussion, Council has been extremely supportive and open to the role
LAVA plays in generating tax revenue for the City through visitor spending. The outside revenue can
be obtained through various methods employed by LAVA and area organizations, which was discussed
in scope of services presented to Council in November.
As LAVA moves forward in 2010, organization leadership would like direction from Council on the
following points to ensure that policy and programming are in line with philosophy and direction of the
City of Longmont.
• The Longmont Area Visitors Association would like direction from Council regarding what
type of events or tourism-related activities LAVA should target. LAVA understands strain to
City resources that certain events and groups pose. In respect to City services, other avenues of
smaller scale visitor business can be pursued to ensure that strain is limited. In moving forward,
LAVA would like opinion or direction from Council regarding best target practices for events,
limitations of size/scope, etc.
• LAVA Board of Directors is currently entertaining discussion regarding the expansion of Board
size and representation. City Council would maintain current one-third of appointees no matter
any adjustment made to size of Board. Board feels this would create more positive oversight
and representation from other avenues of the tourism-related community.
Again, the Longmont Area Visitors Association values and appreciates the direction of Council as
well as the partnership with the City of Longmont staff. If there are any questions, please do not
hesitate to contact Executive Director Gary Wheat or any member of the Board of Directors.
University of Colorado, Leeds School of Business
Richard L. Wobbekind
Dr. Richard L. Wobbekind is Director of the Business Research Division and
Associate Dean for MBA and Enterprise Programs at the University of Colorado at
Boulder. He joined the faculty at the Leeds School of Business in the fall of
1985. He assumed his current position as associate dean in July of 2000.
As Director of the Business Research Division his responsibilities include
developing an annual consensus forecast of the Colorado economy and performing
various economic impact assessments of the Colorado economy. Richard also
produces a quarterly Business Leaders Confidence Index for Colorado and a
Quarterly economic indicator series for Boulder County.
He participates annually in the Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank Regional
Economic Roundtable and is a contributor to the Western BlueChip forecast
He is a member of the Governor's Revenue Estimating Advisory Committee, the
Denver Regional Council of Government's Forecast 2035 Advisory Committee, the
Colorado Tourism Office research advisory council, the Boulder Redevelopment
Authority and the Boulder Economic Council.
For his efforts in community development and outreach, Richard was awarded the
1997 University of Colorado Bank One Community Outreach Award. In 2006 he was
awarded the Robert L. Stearns award for lifetime contributions in teaching,
research and service.
Richard teaches M.B.A. students in macroeconomics, public policy,
entrepreneurship and managerial economics. He has received three awards for
teaching excellence from the students of the Leeds School.
Richard has lived in Colorado for 31 years and has spent much of his time
studying the development of the Colorado and regional economies. Richard
received a BA in economics from Bucknell University and an MA and Ph.D. in
Economics from the University of Colorado at Boulder.
Honors and Distinctions:
Robert L. Stearns Award, University of Colorado 2006
University of Colorado at Boulder Community Service Award, 1997
Professor of the Year, University of Colorado MBA/M.S. Association, 1987, 1991
Board member, National Association for Business Economics
Past president, Association for University Business and Economic Research; Past
president, Denver Association of Business Economists
Public policy, macroeconomic forecasting, regional economic development, the
economics of salary arbitration
Past president, Association for University Business and Economic Research; past
president, Denver Association of Business Economists
Public policy, macroeconomic forecasting, regional economic development, the
economics of salary arbitration
Macroeconomics, public policy
“Arbitration versus Negotiation: The Risk Aversion of Players.” Applied
Economics Letters (January 1998): 187-90; with Frederick and Kaempfer.
2003 Business Economic Outlook. Boulder, Colo.: University of Colorado Business
Research Division (December 2002).
“Race, Risk, and Repeated Arbitration: Evidence from Baseball Arbitration’s
Double Plays.” In Baseball Economics: Current Research, New York: Praegor Press
(1996); with Frederick and Kaempfer.
“Salary Arbitration as a Market Substitute.” In Diamonds are Forever: The
Business of Baseball, Sommers, ed. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution
(1992); with Frederick and Kaempfer.
“International Student Demand for Higher Education in the United States.”
Research in Higher Education (fall 1989); with Graves.
Work in Process:
“Amenity and Other Factors in the Firm Location Choice in Colorado.”
“Does Revenue Sharing Influence the Coaching Carousel”
Boulder County Workforce Profile, 1997
Effectiveness of the Colorado International Trade Office, 1996;
Economic Impact of the Arts in Aspen/Snowmass, 1996
Longmont Citizen Attitude Survey, 1995
The Impact of the BioMedical Industry on Colorado, 1994
Center for the New West Plains Project, 1992
Morgan County Housing Needs Assessment, 1991;
Economic Impact of the Arts in Colorado, 1990
Economic Opportunities: Today, Tomorrow and in the Future, 2004
Boulder County Workforce Profile, 1997
Economic Impact of the Arts in Aspen/Snowmass, 1996
The Impact of the BioMedical Industry on Colorado, 1994
Center for the New West Plains Project, 1992
Economic Impact of the Arts in Colorado, 1990
(303) 492-1147 Email email@example.com
Koelbel, Room S 326
SHOPPING HABITS REPORT
how the recession
has impacted consumer shopping habits
table of contents
1. Key Findings .................................................................................................................................4
2. Respondent Profile ....................................................................................................................6
Current Financial Situation ................................................................................................................8
Future Financial Situation ...................................................................................................................9
3. Shopping Habits ...................................................................................................................... 10
Visit Frequency .................................................................................................................................. 10
Venues Visited ................................................................................................................................... 13
Main Shopping Venue ....................................................................................................................... 15
Changes In Frequency Of Use ....................................................................................................... 17
Reasons For Cutting Back............................................................................................................... 18
Expected Future Changes ............................................................................................................... 19
Changes In Spending ....................................................................................................................... 20
Retail Expectations/Motivations .................................................................................................... 21
Desired Mall Additions .................................................................................................................... 22
4. Loyalty Programs.................................................................................................................... 24
Participation ....................................................................................................................................... 24
Shopping Frequency ......................................................................................................................... 25
Reason For Participation ................................................................................................................. 26
5. Special Events ........................................................................................................................... 27
Event Visitation .................................................................................................................................. 27
Event Productivity ............................................................................................................................. 29
Both consumers and businesses have dealt with a great deal of uncertainty in 2009. Most of this year has been marked by
consumers reigning in discretionary spending, while retailers and shopping center owners want to know what it will take to
get consumers shopping again.
Some of the key questions the industry stakeholders have are: When the economy improves will consumers return to their
old shopping habits and haunts or have their spending patterns been irreversibly altered by the recession? After the recession,
where will the consumer want to shop? And what factors will influence their buying decisions?
This study represents Phase 1 of a quarterly tracking study. The data in this study will be used to provide some insight into
the changes in consumer behavior and attitudes over the past year, as well as providing a benchmark for tracking behavior
and attitudes going forward.
• Ascertain consumers’ perception regarding their current financial situation and future expectations
• Determine current shopping habits, measure areas of change during the past 12 months and expectations for the future
• Understand consumer interest in and use of retail loyalty programs
• Determine consumer interest in and use of mall events and activities
An on-line survey was conducted with over 2,500 consumers. The survey was administered according to the following criteria:
• 2,063 interviews were completed with US residents and 513 interviews were completed with Canadian residents. The
number of surveys completed per state and province was proportional to the population counts for each.
• The interviews were conducted with men and women age 18 and older, who were responsible for at least some of the
apparel, gift or general shopping for their household. Consumers who did not do any shopping for the household were
not included in the study.
• The interviews were conducted from October 14 to October 18, 2009. The respondents were recruited from a national
• The survey has a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points for the entire sample. For the US sample, the
margin of error is plus or minus 2 percentage points, and for the Canadian sample the margin of error is plus or minus 4
• The questionnaire for this project was designed by ICSC, while The Research Shop was responsible for the project
management, fielding, data processing and preparing this summary analysis.
1. KEY FINDINGS
FINANCIAl SITUATION & PERCEPTIONS
• While the majority of consumers in North America rated their current financial situation as good (35%), fair (40%) or
excellent (7%) – only 18% rated their financial situation as poor.
• Consumers are somewhat optimistic regarding the next 12 months. Over 40% believe their financial situation will
improve over the next 12 months, while 47% believe it will stay the same and only 11% say their situation will get worse.
• Financial perceptions and expectations are similar between US and Canadian shoppers. Residents of the Midwest and
South regions tend to report a weaker financial position, while West residents are most optimistic.
• Consumers age 18-44 tend to be more optimistic than those age 45+.
• Over three-fourths of the shoppers report that they have cut back in some way over the past 12 months. Over half
reported cutting back on fine dining, casual dining, movie theater attendance and salon/spa services. Between 40%-50%
reported cutting back in most retail categories. The categories least likely to be affected were visits to discount stores
and grocery stores, and purchases of necessities.
• Shoppers were somewhat more likely to attribute their change in shopping behavior to precautionary measures and
concerns in general, than to economic reasons (such as a job loss or wage reduction).
• Shoppers’ perception of their financial situation had a bigger impact on their shopping behaviors than did their income.
Among those who rated their financial situation as excellent – only half reported cutting back in the last 12 months.
In comparison, 75% of those with incomes of $100,000+ reported cutting back.
• There were also significant differences based on gender and US versus Canadian shoppers. Although men and women
have similar financial perceptions and expectations, women were much more likely to report that they had cut back on
their shopping. This may be due to the fact that women are typically responsible for a larger share of the household
• While US and Canadian shoppers had similar financial perceptions, US shoppers were more reactionary (29% of
Canadians did not cut back versus 19% of US shoppers). US shoppers were more likely to cite a wage or salary
reduction as the reason for their cut backs.
• Canadians are more avid shoppers in general, reporting higher visit frequency and visiting a wider variety of
shopping venues. The most significant difference is in terms of enclosed malls visitation. Canadians reported visiting
enclosed malls nearly twice as often as US shoppers.
• While 80% of consumers reported cutting back over the last 12 months, only 40% report that they expect to increase
their shopping behavior when the economy improves. The areas with the greatest likelihood of increased use were
shopping trips in general, department store visits and purchase of discretionary goods.
• Although US shoppers were more likely to cut back, they were also more likely to anticipate a return to increased
shopping (44% versus 33% of Canadian shoppers).
• About half of the shoppers report that they belong to a loyalty or rewards program for a retailer or shopping center.
• Grocery programs are by far the most popular type of retailer program (37%), followed drug store (19%), department
store (17%), discounter (14%), dining/restaurant (14%) and book store (12%). Only 2% reported that they belong to a
mall or shopping center program.
• Canadian shoppers report higher participation in loyalty programs (64% versus 51% for US). This is mainly due to higher
participation in drug store, department store and movie theater programs.
• The main reason for belonging to a reward program is because of the special/extra discounts given to reward members
or the rewards earned based on purchases. Gifts, freebies, advanced notice of sales and special access for members are
far less important.
• Forty percent of shoppers report they have attended a special event or activity at a shopping center within the past 12
months. An additional 25% indicate that although they did not attend a special event during the past 12 months, they are
interested in these types of activities and would like their shopping center to offer more options.
• The most widely attended/popular types of events are farmers markets, craft fairs, and music events/concerts.
• Over half of the event attendees report that they also shopped or made a food purchase in the mall when they attended
their last special event (58%).
2. RESPONDENT PROFILE
This section identifies the key characteristics of respondents surveyed across each of the ICSC regions. Figure 2.1 compares
the demographic profile to the US and Canadian census estimates.
The respondent profile closely parallels the age, income and household composition for the US and Canada. The 18-24 age
group is somewhat underrepresented. This is likely due to the requirement that the respondents needed to be responsible
for at least some of the shopping for their household in order to qualify for the study.
2.1 RESPONDENT PROFILE TABLE
* Source for US demographics: Claritas Site Reports
** Source for Canadian demographics: MapInfo Canada
Only persons who did at least some of the shopping for their household were included in this survey. Figure 2.2 summarizes
the amount of household shopping they are responsible for.
• Overall, two-thirds of the survey respondents reported that they do all or nearly all of the shopping for their household.
This proportion differs significantly based on gender. The vast majority of women indicate that they are responsible for
most of their household’s shopping, while male involvement was mixed.
• There was no significant difference by region or income. The only difference by age was observed among the 18-24 age
group. This age group was more likely to do half (34%) or less than half (30%) of the shopping for their household.
2.2 HOw mucH OF THE APPAREL, gIFT AND HOuSEHOLD SHOPPINg DO yOu DO FOR yOuR FAmILy?
CURRENT FINANCIAl SITUATION
Consumers were asked to rate their current financial situation and whether they think their financial situation will change
over the next 12 months. Figure 2.3 summarizes their perceptions regarding their current financial situation.
• While most consumers rated their financial situation as fair or good, the overall tone was somewhat
more negative than positive. Over half rated their situation as fair to poor, while just over 40% rated their situation
as good or excellent.
• Not surprisingly, financial perceptions are directly related to income. Among consumers who have a household income
of $100,000+, only 26% rated their financial situation as fair to poor. This figure increases as income decreases (75% of
those with incomes less than $50,000 rate their situation as fair to poor).
• Age had a moderate impact on financial perceptions. Persons age 18-54 are more likely to rate their situation as fair or
poor (60%+) than those age 55+ (50%).
• Geographic location also has a moderate impact on financial situation. While US and Canadian shoppers had fairly similar
perceptions regarding their financial situation, consumers living in the Midwest and South are most likely to rate their
financial situation as fair to poor (63% - versus 55% in other regions).
• There was little difference in perceptions between men and women.
2.3 HOw wOuLD yOu RATE yOuR FINANcIAL SITuATION TODAy?
FUTURE FINANCIAl SITUATION
Figure 2.4 summarizes consumer expectations regarding their future financial situation.
• Consumers are somewhat optimistic regarding the next 12 months, as 40% expect their situation to improve, while half
expect it to stay the same and only 10% expect it to get worse. However, their optimism is somewhat guarded as they
are more likely to expect modest improvements rather than a significant change.
• Future expectations are more strongly impacted by perceptions regarding current financial situation than by actual in-
come. Those who rate their current situation as excellent are also most likely to expect improvements over the next 12
months (49% versus 40% for others). Among those who rate their situation as fair to poor, 15% expect their situation
to get worse.
• Consumers age 18-44 tend to be more optimistic than older consumers (50% of those age 18-44 expect financial
improvement versus 35% of those age 45+). Future expectations were similar between men and women.
• US and Canadian expectations were fairly similar. Persons living in the West region are more optimistic than other
regions (48% expect improvement).
2.4 OvER THE NExT 12 mONTHS, DO yOu THINk yOuR FINANcIAL SITuATION wILL:
3. SHOPPING HABITS
Figure 3.1 compares the frequency with which consumers visit a variety of shopping venues. The chart below shows both
the categorical information, as well as the average annual number of visits calculated from this data (shown in the parenthesis
behind each bar).
• Over three-fourths of the respondents report that they shop at strip centers or enclosed malls. Strip
centers however, generate higher trip frequency (with 32% visiting strip centers more than once a month).
The estimated average number of visits per year to strip centers is 16.6 versus 10.1 mall visits per year.
• Outlet centers, lifestyle centers and downtown shopping areas attracted similar visitation levels, as 60%-70% of the
respondents visited each of these shopping destinations. Consumers report an average of 6-7 visits per year to each
of these venues.
• Consumer’s perception of their financial situation had a stronger impact on shopping visitation and
frequency than all other factors – including household income, age and gender. Persons who rated their financial
situation as excellent visited the widest variety of shopping venues and also reported the most frequent trips.
• The charts and tables on the following pages detail differences based on geography, age and income.
3.1 HOw OFTEN DO yOu vISIT THE FOLLOwINg TyPES OF SHOPPINg vENuES?
Shopping visitation and frequency differed significantly between US and Canadian residents. Figures 3.2 and 3.3 breakout
shopping frequency by venue for US and Canadian residents.
• Canadian shoppers report making more frequent shopping trips in general, than do US shoppers. The most significant
difference is that Canadians report a much higher use of enclosed malls (with visit frequency nearly double that observed
for the US shoppers). In total 90% of Canadians visit enclosed malls, with nearly 30% visiting malls more than once a
month. They report an average of 15.7 mall visits per year, versus an average of 8.7 reported by US shoppers).
• Canadians also report higher use of downtown areas, outlet centers and lifestyle centers.
3.2 SHOPPINg FREquENcy FOR uS RESIDENTS
3.3 SHOPPINg FREquENcy FOR cANADIAN RESIDENTS
Figure 3.4 summarizes the annual number of visits consumers make to each shopping venue and highlights significant differences
between the key demographic and attitudinal segments.
• Frequency of visit is fairly similar by age. The persons who differ most are those age 18-24. This age group has above
average use of enclosed malls and downtown areas.
• Financial situation has a bigger impact on shopping behavior than does income. Shoppers who describe their financial
situation as excellent also report the most frequent visits to all shopping venues. Conversely, household incomes under
$35,000 report below average visitation of all shopping venues (except outlet centers).
• Shopping visitation and visit frequency was surprisingly similar by gender (this may be because men who did no shopping
were excluded from this study). The only difference observed by gender is that men were more likely to visit downtown
areas (which is likely tied to their work habits/locations).
3.4 ANNuAL NumBER OF vISITS TO EAcH SHOPPINg vENuE
(By cuRRENT FINANcIAL SITuATION)
SHOPPING VENUES VISITED WITHIN lAST 60 DAyS
These consumers were also asked which shopping venues they visited within the last 60 days. Figure 3.5 summarizes the
share of consumers visiting each type of venue and compares US shoppers versus Canadian shoppers.
• Nearly 60% of the shoppers visited an enclosed mall or strip center within the past 60 days. Canadian shoppers however
reported much higher use of enclosed malls than did US shoppers.
• Between 25%-30% of US shoppers reported visiting outlet centers, lifestyle centers, or downtown areas. Canadian shop-
pers had higher visitation to all three of these formats (especially downtown areas).
• The main differences based on geography are: Northeast residents report above average use of enclosed malls (61%)
and downtown areas (27%). The South and West have the highest lifestyle visitation (30%+), while a larger than average
share of Southern residents also report shopping downtown areas (28%).
• Visitation and the type of venue used varied somewhat by age, income and financial situation. The tables on the following
page summarize these differences.
3.5 wHIcH OF THE FOLLOwINg SHOPPINg vENuES HAvE yOu vISITED wITHIN THE LAST 60 DAyS?
SHOPPING VENUES VISITED WITHIN lAST 60 DAyS
Figure 3.6 highlights how shopping visitation differs by age, income and geography.
• Recent shopping habits are fairly similar among persons age 35 and older. The persons who differ most are those age 18-24.
This age group has below average use of strip centers and lifestyle centers, and above average use of downtown areas.
• When it comes to income, persons with household incomes under $35,000 report below average visitation of all shopping
venues. The highest income consumers report especially strong use of enclosed malls.
• The only difference observed by gender is men were more likely to visit downtown areas (32% of men versus 25% of women).
3.6 wHIcH OF THE FOLLOwINg SHOPPINg vENuES HAvE yOu vISITED wITHIN THE LAST 60 DAyS?
(By cuRRENT FINANcIAL SITuATION)
MAIN SHOPPING VENUE
Consumers were also asked which ONE shopping venue they use most often for their household shopping.
Figure 3.7 summarizes consumer preferences and compares US shoppers versus Canadian shoppers.
• Shopping preferences differed significantly between US and Canadian shoppers. For Canadian shoppers, enclosed malls
are by far the most preferred shopping venue (59% of Canadian shoppers do most of their shopping at a mall).
• Preferences among US shoppers are split between enclosed malls and strip centers.
• The main differences based on geography are: Northeast residents report above average use of enclosed malls and down-
town areas. The South and West have the highest lifestyle visitation, while Midwest and South residents show a stronger
preference for strip centers over malls.
3.7 wHIcH ONE TyPE OF SHOPPINg vENuE DO yOu uSE mOST OFTEN FOR ITEmS SucH AS APPAREL, HOuSEHOLD
gOODS AND gIFTS?
• Consumers were also asked “once the recession is over, will you still do most of your shopping at the same venue?”
The vast majority of shoppers (76%) indicated that they would continue to do most of their shopping at the same venue
they are currently using (21% were uncertain and only 4% expected to switch when the economy gets better).
• Future expectations were similar between US and Canadian shoppers, and across the various shopping venues.
MAIN SHOPPING VENUE
Figure 3.8 highlights how shopping visitation differs by age, income and geography.
• Most persons indicate that enclosed malls are their main source for apparel, household goods and gifts. The exception
to this is the 35-54 age group. This age group is more likely to do most of their shopping at strip centers rather than malls.
• When it comes to income, persons with household incomes under $35,000 are most likely to cite strip centers as their
main shopping venue, while all other income groups are most likely to rely on enclosed malls.
3.8 wHIcH ONE TyPE OF SHOPPINg vENuE DO yOu uSE mOST OFTEN FOR ITEmS SucH AS APPAREL, HOuSEHOLD
gOODS AND gIFTS?
(By cuRRENT FINANcIAL SITuATION)
CHANGES IN FREQUENCy OF USE
Shoppers were asked if they had changed their shopping habits within the past 12 months. Figure 3.9 summarizes where they
• Overall, 21% of the shoppers said they did not cut back at all during the last 12 months. The areas where shoppers were
most likely to make changes were decreased number of shopping trips in general, as well as decreased shopping trips to
luxury stores, specialty apparel stores, department stores and decreased purchasing of discretionary goods.
• Conversely, shoppers were most likely to report increased use of coupons and discount stores.
• Canadian shoppers were least likely to make changes over the past 12 months. In nearly every category Canadian shoppers
were 10 to 15 percentage points below US shoppers in reporting that they had decreased their shopping behaviors.
• The shopper’s perception of their financial situation had a bigger impact on their behavior changes than did their actual
income. Among the shoppers who rated their financial situation as “excellent”, half reported that they did not cut back
at all, versus 25% of those who rated their financial situation as good, and 10%-15% who rated their situation as fair to
poor. The difference in behavior based on actual income was less significant. Only 25% of those who reported incomes
of $100,000+ indicated they had not cut back, versus 17% of those with incomes of less than $35,000.
• Women were more likely to report decreased behavior (5%-20% higher than men).
• There was little difference in behavior based on age, income or geography.
3.9 IN THE PAST 12 mONTHS, HAvE yOu cHANgED yOuR HABITS IN ANy OF THE FOLLOwINg AREAS:
REASONS FOR CUTTING BACK
Shoppers who had cut back in their shopping habits were asked the reasons why they cut back. Figure 3.10 summarizes
• Shoppers were somewhat more likely to attribute their cut backs to precautionary measures or concern in general, than
to a job loss or salary reduction.
• Although Canadian shoppers were more likely to report that they did not make a cut back (29% versus 19% of US
shoppers), the reasons they gave for cutting back were similar to US shoppers. The only significant difference was that
US shoppers were more likely to cite a salary or wage reduction as their reason for cutting back.
• Persons who rated their financial situation as poor were most likely to cut back because of a job loss or salary/wage
reduction, while those who rate their situation as good or fair were most likely to cut back as precautionary measure
or because of general concern.
• Reasons were similar based on geographic location. The main difference is that West residents were most likely to cite
loss of job or salary reduction as a reason for cutting back.
• There was little difference in behavior based on age or income.
3.10 IF yOu HAvE cuT BAck ON SHOPPINg, wHAT ARE THE REASONS? (BASE: ALL SHOPPERS)
Note: does not add up to 100% due to multiple responses
EXPECTED FUTURE CHANGES
Shoppers were also asked if/how they expected their shopping habits to change when the economy is on an upswing again.
Figure 3.11 summarizes the share of shoppers who expect to increase their use of each category.
• In total, 40% of shoppers indicate they expect to increase their shopping behavior as the economy improves. (However,
80% reported that they are shopping less often in at least one area).
• Shoppers were most likely to report expected increases for shopping in general, department store visits and discretionary
purchases, while only 10% expected to increase their use of luxury or specialty apparel stores.
• While US shoppers were most likely to report cutting back on their shopping, they were also more likely to anticipate
increased shopping behaviors when the economy improves (44% expected to increase shopping versus 33% of Canadian
• Although women were more likely to cut back on their shopping, men and women were equally likely to anticipate
increased shopping when the economy improves.
3.11 wHEN THE EcONOmy IS ON AN uPSwINg, DO yOu ExPEcT ANy cHANgES TO yOuR cuRRENT SHOPPINg
PATTERNS IN THE FOLLOwINg AREAS: (% OF cONSumERS wHO ExPEcT INcREASED uSE)
CHANGES IN SPENDING
In addition to tracking changes in shopping habits, consumers were also asked how they had changed their spending habits in
key consumer categories. Figure 3.12 indicates their spending changes.
• In general, about half of the shoppers reported spending less in each of these categories. The category least affected was
groceries, as only one-fourth reported spending less on these goods.
• The same patterns of significant differences appear. US shoppers were more likely to cut back than Canadian shoppers
(US shoppers had a 5-10 percentage point difference in most categories).
• Shoppers with incomes less than $35,000 were significantly more likely than other incomes groups to reduce their
spending in all categories.
• Again, women were more likely than men to report decreased spending.
3.12 IN THE LAST 12 mONTHS, HAvE yOu mADE SPENDINg cHANgES IN ANy OF THE FOLLOwINg AREAS:
Shoppers were given a list of attributes and asked to rate the importance of each in terms of determining where they do their
household shopping. Figure 3.13 summarizes the importance of each attribute.
• Price ranked as the single most important attribute, with merchandise selection and good customer service ranking
second Convenience factors such as location and parking ranked third, with availability of dining or entertainment
deemed as being least important.
• US and Canadian shoppers placed a similar level of importance on each attribute. The only exception is low price –
which was much more important to US shoppers (45% critical) than Canadian shoppers (33% critical).
• The most significant differences were based on shopper age and financial situation. Persons who rate their current
financial situation as excellent, put less importance on price and a higher level of importance on tertiary attributes such as
parking, dining, and entertainment. Persons age 55+ put a much higher level of importance on parking than do younger
shoppers. Conversely, younger shoppers put a higher level of importance on entertainment.
• There was little difference in importance ratings based on geographic region, gender or income.
3.13 HOw ImPORTANT ARE THE FOLLOwINg ATTRIBuTES IN DETERmININg wHERE yOu SHOP FOR ITEmS SucH AS
APPAREL, HOmE gOODS AND gIFTS?
DESIRED MAll ADDITIONS
Figure 3.14 shows types of retailers or services shoppers would like to see added to their local mall.
• The most widely requested addition was more discount options. Nearly half of the shoppers indicated they would like
to see more discounters (such as Target, Wal-Mart, Kmart, TJMaxx) at their local mall. The other top requests include
more dining options, grocery, book stores, department stores and entertainment/movies.
• Just over 20% indicated they were satisfied with the current offerings at their local mall and did not request any additions.
3.14 wHAT TyPE OF RETAILERS OR SERvIcES wOuLD yOu LIkE TO SEE mORE OF IN yOuR LOcAL mALL?
DESIRED MAll ADDITIONS
The following tables summarize the top requests by gender, age and income. There were very few differences between US
and Canadian shoppers or by region, so these groups are not included in the summary tables.
• While persons with moderate incomes are most likely to request discounters, this retail category tops the list for nearly
all customer segments. Grocers also have a stronger appeal among moderate income consumers than among those with
higher incomes. Persons age 18-24 and those with higher incomes requested the widest variety of mall additions.
• Requests between men and women were surprisingly similar. The biggest differences are that men are much more likely
to request electronic or sporting good stores, while women are more likely to request home stores.
3.15 wHAT TyPE OF RETAILERS OR SERvIcES wOuLD yOu LIkE TO SEE mORE OF IN yOuR LOcAL mALL?
4. LOYALTY PROGRAMS
PARTICIPATION IN lOyAlTy PROGRAMS
Shoppers were asked about their participation in retailer and mall loyalty programs. Figure 4.1 shows the share of
shoppers who participate in a loyalty program, overall and by region.
• About half of the shoppers report that they belong to a loyalty or rewards program for a retailer or
• Participation was fairly consistent across the various age and income groups.
• The most significant differences were based on geography and gender. Canadian shoppers were much more likely to
belong to these types of reward programs than were US shoppers. In addition, participation is strongest among
shoppers living in the Northeast and West.
• Women were more likely to participate in these reward programs than men (57% versus 45% of men).
4.1 DO yOu PARTIcIPATE IN ANy RETAILER OR SHOPPINg cENTER LOyALTy/AFFINITy PROgRAmS?
Figure 4.2 summarizes what types of retailer programs consumers belong to.
• The most widely utilized retailer loyalty programs are those operated by grocers. Nearly 40% of shoppers belong to a
grocery loyalty program.
• Other popular retail loyalty programs attracting more than 10% of the shoppers include drugstore, department store,
discounter, restaurant and book store programs. Only 2% reported belonging to a shopping center loyalty program.
• The stronger Canadian participation is mainly due to strong participation in drug store, department store and movie
theater programs. Conversely, US shoppers have above average participation in restaurant programs.
4.2 wHAT TyPES OF RETAILER LOyALTy PROgRAmS DO yOu PARTIcIPATE IN?
REASON FOR PARTICIPATION
The table below summarizes why shoppers belong to these loyalty programs.
• The main reason for participating in retailer loyalty programs is to receive special/extra discounts or to earn rewards
based on the customer’s purchases.
• Secondary motivators are special gifts or freebies (either at sign-up or throughout the program) or receiving advanced
notice of sales. The least important benefit was gaining access to special member-only events.
4.3 wHAT ARE THE mAIN REASONS yOu BELONg TO THESE LOyALTy PROgRAmS?
5. SPECIAL EVENTS
Shoppers were also asked about their use of special events at enclosed malls and open-air shopping centers. The
chart below summarizes past use of these events, as well as their level of interest in participating in the future.
• Forty percent of the shoppers report that they have attended special events at a mall within the past 12
months. However an additional 25% said that although they did not attend any events during the past 12 months, they
would like to see more options at their local mall. One-third of the shoppers said they did not have any interest in
events and had not attended any in the past 12 months.
• Event use and interest was similar between US and Canadian shoppers, and by geographic region.
• Event use was also surprisingly similar based on gender, age and income. The most significant difference is that while the
share of men and women who have attended an event is similar (41% each), women who have not attended an event are
more likely to indicate future interest (27%) than men (20%).
5.1 EvENT uSE AND INTEREST
The chart below summarizes what types of events they have visited at shopping centers during the previous 12
months and what type of events they would like to see more of.
• Farmers markets were the most widely attended events, followed by craft fairs, and music events/concerts. These events
also topped consumer requests for what they would like to see more of.
• Although the level of participation in special events did not differ based on demographics, the type of events attended
• Farmers markets have the broadest appeal, attracting both men and women, as well as shoppers from all income groups
and above average attendance among those age 55+.
• Craft fairs tend to appeal more strongly to women and shoppers age 45+. Music events/concerts, fashion/style events,
ladies night out and celebrity events tend to appeal to younger consumers.
• Art shows, charity events and music/concerts tend to appeal to the upper income consumers.
• Among the shoppers who have children, about 20% attended a kids event (17% holiday event and 11% other kids event),
and one-third of the parents would like to see more children’s events.
5.2 IN THE PAST 12 mONTHS, wHIcH OF THE FOLLOwINg TyPES OF AcTIvITIES/SPEcIAL EvENTS HAvE yOu
ATTENDED AT AN ENcLOSED mALL OR OuTDOOR SHOPPINg cENTER? AND – wHAT TyPE OF EvENTS wOuLD LIkE
TO SEE mORE OF AT yOuR LOcAL SHOPPINg cENTER?
One of the main objectives of hosting special events is to not only draw traffic to the shopping center, but to convert the
event traffic into sales for the shopping center’s stores and restaurants. To measure the level of event cross-over and
conversion, shoppers were asked to recall the last event they attended and whether they also shopped in the mall. Figure 5.3
summarizes the behavior of shoppers who attend events.
• The majority of event attendees indicated that they visited other areas of the shopping center in addition
to attending the special event.
• Persons attending music events/concerts, farmers markets or charity events were least likely to visit other areas of the
shopping center (40%+ only visited the event). This is likely due to the fact that most of these types of events are held
outside the shopping center or after hours.
• Consumers attending art shows or fashion/style events were most likely to cross-shop.
• There was no significant difference between US and Canadian shoppers, and little difference based on geographic regions
or demographic factors. The most significant difference is that persons age 55+ are most likely to visit the event only and
not shop other areas of the center.
5.3 THINkINg ABOuT THE mOST REcENT SPEcIAL EvENT yOu ATTENDED AT A SHOPPINg cENTER, DID yOu ATTEND
ONLy THE EvENT OR vISIT OTHER AREAS OF THE cENTER AS wELL? (BASE: THOSE wHO ATTENDED AN EvENT IN
LAST 12 mONTHS)