Docstoc

Attachment A

Document Sample
Attachment A Powered By Docstoc
					                                                                                                Attachment A




                                             SARAH SPENCER-WORKMAN, LEED AP

EDUCATION
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
Development)
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
AFFILIATIONS
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
(USGBC)
Advocacy Chair for Green Schools
Committee, USGBC Colorado
USGBC LEED Neighborhood Development
Corresponding Committee
Member of EPA Climate Communities
OpenEco, member
Past Planning Commissioner for the Town
of Parker
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,
September 2009
‘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
Workshop, 2006
’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
2009
‘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,
June 2009
‘Show Me the Money’ Presentation on
Finding Stimulus Money and other green
finance options, NAIOP Green Series
Event, Denver, July 2009
                                                                                          2




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
   - Tools
          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
                    investments
   - 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”
                                                                                      Attachment B



                            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.

                                    MONETARY INCENTIVES

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
program.

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
                                  Revised 01/04/10
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
solutions.



                                  NON-MONETARY INCENTIVES

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
time.

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
                                  Revised 01/04/10
been updated to reflect additional modifications to ensure the efficient processing of quality
development projects.

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
                                  Revised 01/04/10
                                                                                  Attachment C




         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
creation.

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
revenue.

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
                                                                                   Attachment C




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
program.
                             A Review and Recommendation Report
                                         Submitted to
                                    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

                        800,000                             650,000

                        600,000       497,000

                        400,000                  264,000

                        200,000                                        117,900


                                0
                                     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
great depression.

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.

Infrastructure
        • 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
             improve.

Development Services
      • 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
         avoided.
       •   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.

Promotional Resources
      • 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
         programs.
                                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.
                                                                      Attachment E




University of Colorado, Leeds School of Business
Richard L. Wobbekind
Associate Professor

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
newsletter.

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

Professional Affiliations:
Board member, National Association for Business Economics
Past president, Association for University Business and Economic Research; Past
president, Denver Association of Business Economists

Research Interests:
Public policy, macroeconomic forecasting, regional economic development, the
economics of salary arbitration

Professional Affiliations:
Past president, Association for University Business and Economic Research; past
president, Denver Association of Business Economists

Research Interests:
Public policy, macroeconomic forecasting, regional economic development, the
economics of salary arbitration

Teaching Interests:
Macroeconomics, public policy

Selected Publications:
“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”
Funded Research:
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

Contact
(303) 492-1147 Email richard.wobbekind@colorado.edu
Koelbel, Room S 326
Attachment F
Attachment G
                                Attachment H




                      2009
                      SHOPPING HABITS REPORT




how the recession
has impacted consumer shopping habits




                  1
table of contents
Introduction.......................................................................................................................................3


1. Key Findings .................................................................................................................................4


2. Respondent Profile ....................................................................................................................6
Demographic Characteristics............................................................................................................6
Shopper Type........................................................................................................................................7
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
introduction
BACKGROUND
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.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
•	   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

METHODOLOGY
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	
   on-line panel.
•	 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
   percentage points.
•	 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.	




                                                              3
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+.

SHOPPING HABITS
•	 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
   shopping.
•	 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).	




                                                              4
lOyAlTy PROGRAMS
•	 	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.

SPECIAl EVENTS
•	 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%).	




                                                             5
2. RESPONDENT PROFILE

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS
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




                                                              6
SHOPPER TyPE
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.

Significant differences:
•		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?




                                                              7
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.

Significant differences:
•		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?




                                                              8
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.	

Significant differences:
•	 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:




                                                            9
3. SHOPPING HABITS

VISIT FREQUENCy
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.

Significant differences:
•	 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?




                                                              10
VISIT FREQUENCy
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




                                                                  11
VISIT FREQUENCy
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.

Significant differences:
•	 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 AgE)




  (By INcOmE)




  (By cuRRENT FINANcIAL SITuATION)




  Bold=Significant	difference




                                                             12
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).	

Significant differences:
•	 	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?




                                                             13
SHOPPING VENUES VISITED WITHIN lAST 60 DAyS
Figure 3.6 highlights how shopping visitation differs by age, income and geography.

Significant differences:
                                                                                                                              	
•		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 AgE)




  (By INcOmE)




  (By cuRRENT FINANcIAL SITuATION)




  Bold=Significant	difference




                                                             14
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.		




                                                           15
MAIN SHOPPING VENUE
Figure 3.8 highlights how shopping visitation differs by age, income and geography.

Significant differences:
•	 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 AgE)




  (By INcOmE)




  (By cuRRENT FINANcIAL SITuATION)




  Bold=Significant	difference




                                                               16
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
made changes.
•	 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.

Significant differences:
•	 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:




                                                             17
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
their comments.
•	 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.	

Significant differences:
•		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	




                                                             18
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.	

Significant differences:
•		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	
   shoppers).	
•		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)




                                                             19
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.

Significant differences:
•		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:




                                                              20
RETAIl EXPECTATIONS/MOTIVATION
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.

Significant differences:
•	 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?




                                                               21
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?




                                                              22
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.

Significant differences:
•		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?

 (By AgE)




 (By INcOmE)




 (By gENDER)




                                                             23
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
   shopping center.

Significant Differences:
•	 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?




                                                          24
SHOPPING FREQUENCy--DETAIl
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.		

Significant differences:
•		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?




                                                            25
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?




                                                             26
5. SPECIAL EVENTS

EVENT VISITATION
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.

Significant Differences:
•	 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




                                                              27
EVENT VISITATION
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.

Significant differences:
•		Although	the	level	of	participation	in	special	events	did	not	differ	based	on	demographics,	the	type	of	events	attended	
   does vary.
•		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?




                                                            28
EVENT PRODUCTIVITy
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.

Significant differences:
•		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)




                                                                   29
30
Attachment I

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:27
posted:11/15/2011
language:English
pages:96