Answers to Case Study for Chapter 12 — Measuring the Economic Impact of the MLB All-Star Game
Note that the survey in Exhibit 12.14 is to be used for this case study. Also, note that the first row (survey respondent) of the data set corresponds to that filled-out survey.
Note that Survey #183 has no zipcode on purpose to see how the student responds. There are two ways to handle this. One is to throw it out or notice that they have significant lodging spending so they likely are visitors. This answer here chose to keep it in and label it a Visitor.
Also, Surveys #200 and #290 have the wrong number of days (data entry error is simulated). I have fixed those for these answers. Most students ask about it and I put it back on them to figure out what to do.
Also, Survey #226 has 11 for Attend instead of 1. One thing to teach the students is to “clean” the data. The easiest way to catch typos is to Filter the Data (under Data/Filter/Autofilter) and look at the choices given on the pulldown.
Also, Survey #175 has 11 for Casual, where it likely should be a 1.
Question Answer Explanation
Question 1 42,059 The game sold out and seats 42,059. An assumption is that there were not any no-shows – somebody sat in every seat.
Here is one method: First, insert a column and label it “Visitors”. Place a 1 for every visitor and a 0 for every local resident. Either create an
Excel formula or sort the entire data set by zipcode and it will make it easier to enter the 0s and 1s in groups. Second, note that each survey
represents more than one person (usually a family or group). Each of these people will take up a seat at the stadium if they are attending. In
order to count the number of visitors (versus locals) who attended the game, we must account for the Party size (Q7 on the survey), and
whether they attended the game (Q1), and whether they are a Visitor (column you just created). Third, insert a column and either use the
formula that is in there or do it by hand. Put in this column either the party size for visitors who attend the game or a blank. Once that’s
The survey asks the question a spending per DAY for the GROUP. This question wants the spending per DAY for each PERSON. For non-
lodging, the daily spending per person is $222.78. For lodging, it is $53.07. This is for the people in Question 5 — those who are now called
“incremental” visitors. WE ASSUME THAT THE RESPONDENT ANSWERED THE QUESTION PER NIGHT STAYED, NOT MAKING ANY
ADJUSTMENT FROM DAYS TO NIGHTS.
Taking the average (only for the incremental visitors) of the number of days not accounting for party size leads to 2.25 days. When
weighting the number of days by party size, it is 2.26 (so not an important difference). For nights, the weighted average is 1.29.
Since Q6 asks for per person spending per day and Q7 asks for the number of days, then multiplying Q6 and Q7 gives the answer to Q8.
For non-lodging, it is $503.22. For lodging it is $68.55. The total, then, is $571.77. Again, depending on how one does the rounding, it could
be off by something.
Total EI = Direct EI + Indirect EI. Indirect EI = Direct EI*multiplier. Here the multiplier is given as 1.6 (usually it is a matrix for each spending
category). Thus, Total EI = 1.6*Q9 = $11.16 million
typically be 14,280 spots open in hotel rooms in Houston. Given that 19,715 incremental visitors showed up, they blocked or crowded out
5,435 visitors (19,715-14,280). Note that this calculation is based on incremental visitors, not total visitors because a Casual Visitor (for
instance) staying in a hotel is a typical tourist anyway. Even if they stop another tourist from coming, they are here for another reason (not
the game), so that is not part of the calculation of economic impact.
by the crowded out visitors. This is possibly a strong assumption because these All-Star Game visitors spend more than a typical visitor
does. In fact, a major sporting event visitor spends about twice as much as a typical visitor (based on comparisons to CVB numbers).
Anyway, we don’t have the CVB information, so re-answer the previous Questions 9 and 10 with 14,280 for incremental visitors.
This is where all of the pieces get put together. Q8 multiplied by Q5 gives the direct spending that comes from incremental visitors
($11,272,504). Also, 60% of LOC funding came from outside of the city ($2.7 million). This is assumed to be new incremental spending in
the city that would not have occurred otherwise. Also, Minute Maid took the opportunity to activate its sponsorship of the stadium by
spending an additional $1 million. Again, this is assumed to additional net new spending by Minute Maid. However, the City spent $8 million
hosting the event. It is assumed that this money could have been spent elsewhere and is thus a cost of the event to be subtracted off of the
$11,272,504 2.7 1 8 $6.97
should be 247. That means that of the people surveyed, 672 attended the game (425 visitors and 247 locals). This is only for the SAMPLE.
Some students will think that this is the answer. They might need to reminded (prior to starting) to be sure to do their calculations for the
entire POPULATION, not just the SAMPLE. Assuming a random sample of attendees, about 63% (425/672) of the game attendees are
visitors. So, multiply that ratio by 40,950 to get the answer: 26,600.
This is similar, but for Casual Visitors. There are 51 Casual Visitors who attended the game in the SAMPLE. So, 51/425 is the percentage of
visitors attending the game who are Casual. Multiply that by 26,600 to get: 3,108
BUT STAYED OUTSIDE (PERHAPS IN A LOCAL PUB WATCHING THE GAME). THIS CASE STUDY DOES NOT INCLUDE THEM
(ALTHOUGH THEY ARE IN THE DATA SET AND COULD BE INCLUDED).