The Wayback Machine - http://web.archive.org/web/20040828120622/http://www.pandagon.net:80/cgibin/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=3172
Comments: More Shopping, Please

How do you figure that campaigns don't bring money to cities? I agree that they don't spread it around evenly, but they must bring money. I heard that in Boston, a lot of the restaurants were complaining that convention goers weren't eating out because they were at private parties -- but those private parties had their food provided for by someone (catering services, restaurants with catering), and had to rent a location for the parties from someone (hotels, etc), and all the convention-goers were staying hotels, and taking taxis and so on. So the economic "winnings" obviously weren't spread evenly around, but significant amounts of money were spent in Boston. And I'm sure there's still sales tax on the catering services provided, so I'd be curious to see how the state did.

It'll be the same thing in NYC. I've seen posts on how there will be private "cigar parties" and so on, so the average restaurant may not see the benefit (or it may drive their customers away), but someone will do well from the convention being there, and I'm sure NYC sales tax receipts will improve.

Posted by halle at August 17, 2004 06:04 PM

It's a red herring, man. The secondary revenue is not why cities want to attract conventions. It's the *primary* revenue that comes from event fees, site rentals, hotel rooms, catering revenue, et al. (In other words, the first comment is right on)

The exception that proves the rule is Vegas. But then again, Vegas was originally envisioned as an oasis where, once you got there, since there was nothing else to do, you might as well gamble. No amount of scheduled seminars or convention sessions is going to keep people out of the casinos, and so event planners don't even fight it. I wouldn't be surprised if Vegas conventioneer goody bags didn't have $10 or $20 worth of quarters right in 'em, not to put too fine a point on it.

All this is why having a convention in NYC is about the dumbest thing an organization could ever do. NYC has nothing to offer conventioneers except the highest priced distractions and the rudest locals in the country. No one who ever goes to NYC on business has a good time. And NYC gets almost no extra dough from the event since the rooms and halls would have been booked by someone else anyway. It's a lose-lose situation.

Posted by diddy at August 17, 2004 06:10 PM

This is just basic economics. Remember "Opportunity Costs"? If the RNC wasn't being held in Madison Square Garden this month, it would still be hosting other conventions, and NYC hotels and museums and tourist spots would be filled to bursting with the usual seasonal tourist traffic. Now, the people and conventions that usually visit NY in late August are going somewhere else. So there's no net gain to the city. Plus, there's also the exhorbitant security and operation costs.

San Diego (which hosted the 1996 RNC) lost a huge amount of money on the whole deal. San Diego's convention center is booked pretty much year round. But the RNC occupied it for three weeks - one week for setup, one week for the convention, one week for teardown. So that was two weeks when the center was dark, not hosting events and not drawing tourists and conventioneers to SD to spend money in its stores, restaurants, and tourist establishments. Local businesses took a bath on the whole thing.

The same thing happened to the 1996 Atlanta games - people who normally visited Atlanta said "Oh shit, the Olympics are in town! We'll, we'd better go somewhere else, then". Worse, locals saw the disruption that the Olympics would have on the city (traffic, crowding, etc.) and decided that those two weeks were a good time to get out of town. So the city emptied out, and local businesses again took a bath.

The same thing happened in Boston last month, and seems to be happening in Athens right now. Big megaevents that require construction and security costs - in a city that already has a profitable flow of tourists - always, ALWAYS, end up fucking the city that hosts them.

Posted by FMguru at August 17, 2004 06:18 PM

How do you figure that campaigns don't bring money to cities? I agree that they don't spread it around evenly, but they must bring money. I heard that in Boston, a lot of the restaurants were complaining that convention goers weren't eating out because they were at private parties -- but those private parties had their food provided for by someone (catering services, restaurants with catering), and had to rent a location for the parties from someone (hotels, etc), and all the convention-goers were staying hotels, and taking taxis and so on. So the economic "winnings" obviously weren't spread evenly around, but significant amounts of money were spent in Boston. And I'm sure there's still sales tax on the catering services provided, so I'd be curious to see how the state did.


It'll be the same thing in NYC. I've seen posts on how there will be private "cigar parties" and so on, so the average restaurant may not see the benefit (or it may drive their customers away), but someone will do well from the convention being there, and I'm sure NYC sales tax receipts will improve.

In terms of the money that the Times was talking about and the money that didn't flow in during Boston, no, they don't bring money to cities. Those venues that get rented out, sure. But in terms of that boom that was promised, hell no.

And the conventioneers also have to make up for the normal stream of customers who stop shopping because they don't want to be hassled.

It's a red herring, man. The secondary revenue is not why cities want to attract conventions. It's the *primary* revenue that comes from event fees, site rentals, hotel rooms, catering revenue, et al.

However, since that's what cities PROMISE, maybe that's the claim I was EVALUATING.

The McDonald's in the Fleet Center, I'm sure, did boffo business. Most of the rest of Boston? Probably not. Well, definitely not, because it didn't happen in Boston, and it won't happen in New York.

No one who ever goes to NYC on business has a good time. And NYC gets almost no extra dough from the event since the rooms and halls would have been booked by someone else anyway.

You just proved my point, actually. Thanks! :)

And halle - again, you proved my point, too. People are driven towards certain spots (the microeconomy I spoke of), but the economy at large, all that booming business that's promised? The convention keeps you so busy you can't go. I changed it to "much" money, but the point still stands - convention money is driven towards very specific places, not the economy at large, and the overall amount of money the actual conventioneers (the period that's actually relevant here) throw into the economy is negligible.

Posted by jesse at August 17, 2004 06:21 PM

And FMGuru also raises a good point, which I alluded to - not only does the convention push people only down certain economic venues, it virtually envelops the area just for its conventioneers.

Posted by jesse at August 17, 2004 06:24 PM

All this is why having a convention in NYC is about the dumbest thing an organization could ever do. NYC has nothing to offer conventioneers except the highest priced distractions and the rudest locals in the country. No one who ever goes to NYC on business has a good time. And NYC gets almost no extra dough from the event since the rooms and halls would have been booked by someone else anyway. It's a lose-lose situation.

Ah, Diddy, I'm not a local -- only lived in NYC for the last 5 years -- but after being here, I don't ever want to live anyplace else. Particularly after visiting Atlanta for a conference last week: now that's a stupid city. If you're spending a lot to go out and have fun in NYC, you just don't know where to look. Rooftop Films are good and only 7 bucks for a night's fun. Drinks cost what the minimart charges. Or might I suggest Coney Island? On summer nights, nothing beats it. Bring your own beer, sit on the beach, watch some free fireworks, check out the breakdancers, ride the Cyclone, and you're set. Even so, you know what's a suprisingly good show? Wonderful Town. It'll cost you, but it's worth it.

And, Christ, I wish this stupid convention were anywhere but here. I'm kind of obligated to protest -- frankly, I'd rather not (you know, the "I like puppets, but . . ." conversation: if you don't know what I'm talking about, nevermind); I'd rather -- and I think now the thugs would be too -- it be in some shithole like Atlanta, San Antonio, or Biloxi.

Posted by Karl, the Idiot at August 17, 2004 07:52 PM

No, Diddy, Vegas convention visitor goodie bags have stuff like coupons for free drinks and half-priced shows. No guides to the grey-market escort services, no maps to the brothels in Pahrump, nothing. And no quarters. We definitely want you to bring your own money.

Posted by Lo Ping Wong at August 17, 2004 07:58 PM

Hey Karl, bite your tongue. San Antonio is a perfectly nice and very beautiful old city. Too bad it's full of Texans.

Posted by Lo Ping Wong at August 17, 2004 08:13 PM

"All this is why having a convention in NYC is about the dumbest thing an organization could ever do."


Well, of course, the point of having the convention in NYC was 9/11 photo ops, which can't really be duplicated elsewhere . . .

Posted by rea at August 17, 2004 08:47 PM

Right on, Karl. I friggin' love NYC. There are rude people everywhere; I don't think they are any ruder in NYC. There has been many a time I was a little lost on the subway and got friendly help from a local. Also, I can eat the best meal of my life in Chinatown for about 5 bucks. Of course, my idea of a good time is to spend about the whole day at a good museum and barely spend a penny. Your mileage may vary. God I can't wait to get back to that town. I'm sure I'll wait until after this miserable convention though.

Posted by sprocket at August 17, 2004 09:24 PM

Look, NYC is a big, flippin' city. Just got back from there. And the number of people actually going to convention don't even compare to the everyday population and economy. I would guess Boston is the same. It should be relatively simple to find out the numbers...

Posted by Partisan J at August 17, 2004 11:02 PM

Yeah! Sorry to cap on San Antonio -- well, not really -- but I'm just extrapolating from my two times there. Struck me as a city where you couldn't walk anywhere and then there's that ring of a highway around the city divided into quadrents each with the same franchises so you have to check your compass to know whether you're looking at the NE or SW Red Lobster/Old Navy combo.

I'm inclined to agree with Jesse. I don't think this convention is going to help NYC financially except, and this is a big but (I cannot lie), the RNC is going to bring in something that the DNC didn't: 1/2 a million protesters who might just counterbalence all the folks who are just opting for getting the hell out of town. Where are they going to stay? Lots of places, but they have to have breakfast, buy beer, buy subway passes, get their bikes repaired, and so forth: so NY might break even . . . unless it gets its ass sued thousands of times for civil rights violations.

Posted by Karl, the Idiot at August 17, 2004 11:27 PM

Well, you can't really guess from the Democratic Convention what will happen at the Republican Convention, anyway. Sure, the number of invited people will be the same. But the million plus people who come to protest will be pumping tons of money into the local economy.

Posted by Amanda at August 17, 2004 11:35 PM

If the RNC wasn't being held in Madison Square Garden this month, it would still be hosting other conventions, and NYC hotels and museums and tourist spots would be filled to bursting with the usual seasonal tourist traffic.

But they're driving all the suburbanites & locals out of town - the transportation will be screwed, most people are taking vacation and a lot of offices are just plain shutting down - so that revenue is lost. The tourists aren't coming (the conventioners won't be using the tourist stuff anyway). There are even tickets still avaiilable for the US Open Tennis, pretty much unheard of every other year.

Posted by billyfrombelfast at August 18, 2004 08:03 AM

"Well, you can't really guess from the Democratic Convention what will happen at the Republican Convention, anyway. Sure, the number of invited people will be the same. But the million plus people who come to protest will be pumping tons of money into the local economy."
LOL -- Good point. Protesters need to eat, too!

"Look, NYC is a big, flippin' city. Just got back from there. And the number of people actually going to convention don't even compare to the everyday population and economy. I would guess Boston is the same. It should be relatively simple to find out the numbers..."
But Boston cleared out for the convention, and all of us who lived on the periphery (I live about 15 minutes from downdown) avoided it like the plague. I would guess that New York will be the same. Anyone who doesn't have to be in Manhattan will stay the hell out. The protesters should take up the slack, though!

Posted by Don at August 18, 2004 11:23 AM

One quibble:
after you're done the only places open are 7/11s, hotels, fast food chains and gas stations.
In virtually any other convention city, yes. In New York, lots of things are open after 11:45. Many of these places sell unAmerican and unRepublican things like imported beer and falafel and smutty magazines, but they are open.

Posted by seth at August 19, 2004 01:30 PM
Post a comment












Remember personal info?