Jacksonville, FL Prepared for:
Visit Jacksonville
DestinationMAP
2016 Jacksonville Custom Study
Prepared for:
Visit Jacksonville
Prepared by:
STR
735 East Main Street
Hendersonville, TN 37075
615-824-8664
str.com For Additional Information Contact [email protected]
The STR/DestinationMAP suite of products is a publication of STR and is intended solely for use by paid subscribers.
Reproduction or distribution of the DestinationMAP materials, in whole or in part, without permission of STR is
prohibited and subject to legal action. Site licenses are available. Ownership, distribution and use of the
DestinationMAP suite of products is subject to the terms of the contract you have entered into with STR. STR does not
endorse any particular organization, and no strategic advice or marketing recommendation is intended or implied.
DestinationMAP Custom Report – Jacksonville 2016
STR, Inc. 2
2016 DESTINATIONMAP: Custom Study and Key Findings for Jacksonville
Information for this Custom Study has been collected through a survey conducted by STR on behalf of
Visit Jacksonville. The survey was design in a format similar to the baseline DestinationMAP 2015. A
sample of meeting planner prospects provided by Visit Jacksonville was used for this study. The results
compare Jacksonville to a competing set of destinations on a range of considerations used by meeting
planners as they decide on future locations for their meetings. The seven competitive markets selected
by Jacksonville are Charlotte, Louisville, Tampa, Savannah, Birmingham, Richmond and Daytona Beach.
Key Findings
Jacksonville faces low-to-moderate levels of competition for future meetings across the seven
markets selected with significant competition coming from outside these markets.
About one-third of meeting planners had held a meeting in Jacksonville during the past two years, and
about one in four planners had future plans for a meeting in the market. In comparison, about a
quarter of meeting planners held a meeting in Tampa in the last two years followed by Louisville. Over
half of the meeting planners in this study looked to alternative sites (outside the competitive sites listed)
for future meetings. All planners interviewed were active meeting planners. (More details in Section 2).
Destination Past
Meetings Future
Meetings
Jacksonville 30% 23%
Tampa 26 16
Louisville 16 7
Savannah 9 9
Charlotte 11 12
Daytona Beach 7 12
Birmingham 4 2
Richmond 4 4
None of the above 39 53
Almost all had either considered or held a major meeting in Jacksonville in the past two years.
About four out of five meeting planners had either considered or held a major meeting in Jacksonville in
the past two years. As mentioned above, a little under a third of meeting planners had held a 200+
attendee meeting in Jacksonville in the past two years. About half of planners have considered
Jacksonville but selected a different destination. One out of five meeting planners did not consider
Jacksonville for a major meeting. (More details in Section 6.1)
DestinationMAP Custom Report – Jacksonville 2016
STR, Inc. 3
Orlando was the top alternative destination to Jacksonville.
Tampa and Atlanta came in 2nd and 3rd
behind Orlando as an alternative to
Jacksonville. Jacksonville meeting planners
are more regionalized in their site choices
and alternatives than has been observed
with other top 40 North American
destination markets. A clear majority of
respondents noted that they had also
considered an alternative Florida destination
to host their meeting, followed by locations
in the state of Georgia. (More details in
Section 6.3)
Tampa takes the top position over Jacksonville as a business meeting and convention site followed by
Charlotte.
Among the seven competitive markets,
Jacksonville rated as the third best
destination as a site for conventions and tied
for second as a business meeting site. Tampa
led both of these meeting categories, with
Charlotte outpacing Jacksonville as a site for
business meetings and tying Jacksonville in
second as a convention site.
As a vacation site, Savannah, Tampa, and
Daytona outpace Jacksonville. Across all
competitive destination rankings, Birmingham
consistently trails the competition.
DestinationMAP Custom Report – Jacksonville 2016
STR, Inc. 4
Logistical considerations, specifically “willingness to provide concessions,” demonstrate a core
strength for Jacksonville among its competitive set.
Jacksonville scores well on
logistical considerations and these
include several considerations that
are most important to meeting
planners. Willingness to provide
concessions, moderate lodging
costs, good perceived value, along
with a short list of recreational
considerations show Jacksonville’s
comparative advantages. These
present a significant opportunity
for Jacksonville to differentiate
itself among the competition.
Challenges for Jacksonville exist
with weaker ratings in
environmental areas
(different/unique, popular place)
and recreation (good nightlife,
interesting (More details in
Section 4).
DestinationMAP Custom Report – Jacksonville 2016
STR, Inc. 5
Meeting planner’s perceptions of Jacksonville’s conference center pose a serious challenge.
Jacksonville’s convention
center facility and location
attributes show
considerable signs of
weakness in comparison to
competition. Tampa earns
the most top finishes and is
followed by Charlotte.
Jacksonville’s convention
center generally performs in
the lower-to-middle portion
of its competitive field.
On the positive, supportive
convention bureau,
technology and reasonable
facility rental rates are
considerations where
perceptions on Jacksonville
convention facilities place it
near the top. (More details
in Section 4.9)
Jacksonville’s marketing exposure shows strengths in those channels considered to be most important
to meeting planners: websites and trade shows.
Over a third of meeting planners had used Visit Jacksonville’s website in the last two years, and a slightly
smaller proportion had also visited a Visit Jacksonville trade booth during the same time period. These
Custom Study respondents generally show higher exposure to a majority of marketing channels over
their competitors with exceptions being the internet and trade book ads. (More details in Section 5)
DestinationMAP Custom Report – Jacksonville 2016
STR, Inc. 6
Table of Contents
Jacksonville’s DestinationMAP Custom Study has six sections with each beginning with a description of
contents and highlights for ease of use. This Table of Contents provides a detailed outline and overview
of the respective sections
2016 DESTINATIONMAP: Custom Study and Key Findings for Jacksonville .................................................. 2
Key Findings .............................................................................................................................................. 2
Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................................... 6
Section 1: Details on DestinationMAP and Jacksonville Custom Study Methodology ................................. 8
1.1: Background ........................................................................................................................................ 8
1.2: Research Approach .......................................................................................................................... 10
1.3: Questionnaire Design ....................................................................................................................... 11
1.4: Sample Characteristics ..................................................................................................................... 12
Section 2: Major Meetings .......................................................................................................................... 16
2.1: Familiarity with Nine Jacksonville Custom Cities/Destinations ....................................................... 16
2.2: Past Major Meetings ........................................................................................................................ 17
2.3: Planned Future Meetings ................................................................................................................. 18
Section 3: Overall Reputation ..................................................................................................................... 19
3.1: Convention Site, Business Meeting Site and Vacation Destination Ratings .................................... 19
3.2: Competitive Set Ratings Comparison .............................................................................................. 20
Section 4: Destination Image ...................................................................................................................... 23
4.1: Site Selection Criteria Relative Importance ..................................................................................... 24
4.2: Positive Travel Image ....................................................................................................................... 25
4.3: Competitive Set Performance: Positive Travel Image ..................................................................... 27
4.4: Deterrents to Site Selection ............................................................................................................. 28
4.5: Negative Travel Image ..................................................................................................................... 29
4.6: Competitive Set Performance: Negative Travel Image .................................................................... 31
4.7: Convention Center Selection Criteria Relative Importance ............................................................. 32
4.8: Convention Center Image ................................................................................................................ 33
4.9: Competitive Set Performance: Convention Center Image .............................................................. 36
Section 5: Marketing to Meeting Planners ................................................................................................. 37
Section 5.1: Exposure to Marketing Activity Summary .......................................................................... 37
DestinationMAP Custom Report – Jacksonville 2016
STR, Inc. 7
Section 5.2: Exposure to Marketing Activity - Competitive Set .............................................................. 39
Section 6: Jacksonville Custom Questions .................................................................................................. 42
6.1: Jacksonville Venues Selected or Considered ................................................................................... 42
6.2: Alternative Destinations Selected .................................................................................................... 43
6.3: Reasons for Not Choosing Jacksonville ............................................................................................ 46
Additional Inquiries ..................................................................................................................................... 48
Appendix ..................................................................................................................................................... 49
DestinationMAP Custom Report – Jacksonville 2016
STR, Inc. 8
Section 1: Details on DestinationMAP and Jacksonville Custom Study Methodology
DestinationMAP 2015 is the sixteenth in a continuing series of brand image/marketing studies
conducted among a national sample of major meeting and convention decision makers.
DestinationMAP covers 40 major destinations in North America and is conducted every two years.
Organization
1.1 Background
1.2 Research Approach
1.3 Questionnaire Design
1.4 Sample Characteristics
1.1: Background
The DestinationMAP report consists of two volumes which are useful in the development of marketing
and strategic plans. Volume I focuses on the site selection process. Volume II focuses on the market
position of the subscriber destination. Topics covered include brand image, market share and other
types of evaluative data. The Jacksonville 2016 Custom Study presents findings which allow a
destination to compare how their clients view them against norms developed in the main
DestinationMAP study.
DestinationMAP 2015 introduced several changes both in sampling and survey procedures, and in
questioning techniques from previous editions. The DestinationMAP survey sample was compiled using
past survey participants and collecting e-mail addresses from publicly available lists on the web. The
DestinationMAP 2015 survey was sent out electronically. The Jacksonville 2016 Custom Study was also
sent out electronically.
The DestinationMAP 2015 questionnaire was shortened to reduce respondent fatigue and overall drop-
out rates, thereby improving the information provided. In keeping with the normal pattern for this
report, a small number of questions were added or revised in response to emerging industry related
considerations (such as adding technology questions about the importance of sufficient Internet
bandwidth or free Wi-Fi) or to clarify or add further nuance to planner concerns. The Jacksonville 2016
Custom Study questionnaire was designed in a similar format to DestinationMAP 2015.
DestinationMAP Custom Report – Jacksonville 2016
STR, Inc. 9
Meeting Locations Covered
DestinationMAP 2015 covers the following 40 major meeting markets in North America:
Table 1. Markets Included in DestinationMAP 2015
United States Cities
West South Central/Great Lakes East
Anaheim Atlanta Austin Baltimore
Denver Charlotte Chicago Boston
Hawaii Fort Lauderdale Dallas New York City
Las Vegas Jacksonville Houston Philadelphia
Los Angeles Louisville* Indianapolis Washington, D.C.
Phoenix Miami Minneapolis
Portland Nashville New Orleans
Sacramento Orlando San Antonio
Salt Lake City* Tampa* St. Louis*
San Diego
San Francisco
San Jose
Jacksonville
Seattle
Canadian Cities
Vancouver Toronto Montreal
*New to list in 2015
The Jacksonville 2016 Custom Study covers Jacksonville and the following eight markets selected by the
Visit Jacksonville CVB:
Table 2. Markets Included in Jacksonville 2016 Custom Study
Destinations
Jacksonville, FL
Charlotte, NC
Louisville, KY
Tampa, FL
Savannah, GA
Birmingham, AL
Richmond, VA
Daytona Beach, FL
DestinationMAP Custom Report – Jacksonville 2016
STR, Inc. 10
1.2: Research Approach
DestinationMAP 2015 was conducted as a web-based survey in April 2015 among a national sample of
meeting planners based in the United States. The Custom Study was also conducted as a web-based
survey in March 2016.
Sampling Procedure
For the DestinationMAP 2015 study, a sample of meeting planners and decision makers was generated
through:
A sample of publically available industry contact directories
Previous respondents and databases of meeting planners from meeting planning publications
Web-based searches of meeting planner contacts
Table 3. Total Respondents
DestinationMAP 2015
Number of Completed Surveys
Total sample 623
Response rate 13.0%
For the Jacksonville 2016 Custom Study, a sample of meeting planners and decision makers were
provided by the Visit Jacksonville CVB. Meeting planners were screened to identify planners who
planned events of 200+ attendees and had an opinion about at least one of the eight markets tested.
The majority of meeting planners had opinions about at least four of the eight markets tested.
A total of 57 online interviews were completed. Potential respondents were reminded by email that
their participation would be rewarded with a $10 incentive. Responses to the Custom Study
questionnaire were closely monitored by STR staff. The survey was open for 20 days from March 16 –
April 5, 2016.
Table 4. Total Respondents
Jacksonville 2016 Custom Study
Sent Survey
Invites
Total After Bounces
and Unsubscribes/DQs
Number of Completed
Surveys Completion Rate
Total 784 682 57 8.4%
DestinationMAP Custom Report – Jacksonville 2016
STR, Inc. 11
Lastly, some tables and figures may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding or the fact that the
question is a multiple response question where a planner may elect more than one option.
1.3: Questionnaire Design
Wording for core questions of the Jacksonville Custom Study survey was consistent with that used in
the main DestinationMAP 2015 study. The questionnaire’s use of lists/rating options were randomized
and rotated between respondents to minimize the possibility of selection/order bias in responses. In
addition to a common core set of DestinationMAP questions, Jacksonville also included an additional
series of custom question with their survey.
DestinationMAP Custom Report – Jacksonville 2016
STR, Inc. 12
1.4: Sample Characteristics
An overall description of the Jacksonville Custom Study sample is presented in the following tables.
Employment Characteristics
Third-party meeting planning firms and associations represent the two largest employers of meeting
planners participating in the Jacksonville Custom Study. There are considerably fewer third party
meeting planning firms represented and more corporate meeting planners in the DestinationMAP 2015
sample.
Table 5. Employment of Respondents
Jacksonville 2016 Custom Study
Within your organization, would you
classify yourself as: Overall
DestinationMAP Sample
Third party meeting planning firm 33% 13% Association or society 25 29 Other Non-Profit 12 14 Corporation 9 27 Educational institution 9 6 Self-employed 7 10 Association management company (AMC) 4 NA Consulting firm 4 3 Other 4 8 Travel agency 4 2 Government 2 4 Accounting or law firm 0 1 Destination marketing organization (DMO) 0 0 Financial institution 0 1 Insurance company 0 2 Medical/health care provider 0 3 Scientific or high tech firm 0 1
DestinationMAP Custom Report – Jacksonville 2016
STR, Inc. 13
Almost all respondents play a major role in researching and identifying venues for the meetings they are
responsible for planning. Just under one-third of meeting planners are the final decision makers.
In terms of the types of meetings planned, annual conventions are the top meeting types. National,
regional, corporate and seminars are also planned by a significant portion of planners.
Table 6. Description of Respondents
Jacksonville 2016 Custom Study
Within your organization, would you
classify yourself as: Overall
DestinationMAP
Sample
Identify and research venue 89% 84%
Operational 70 77
Primarily administrative 60 61
Final decision maker 32 42
Other 12 NA
Table 7. Type of Meetings Planned by Respondents
Jacksonville 2016 Custom Study
What type(s) of meetings do you plan
or influence? Overall
DestinationMAP
Sample
Annual conventions 77% 60%
National meetings 60 53
Regional meetings 47 51
Corporate meetings 37 53
Seminars 33 50
International meetings 28 31
Trade shows 26 35
Sales meetings 23 31
Travel incentive meetings 16 20
Other 11 NA
DestinationMAP Custom Report – Jacksonville 2016
STR, Inc. 14
Jacksonville meeting planners are very experienced, less likely to hold a CMP certification and more
likely to plan their largest meeting involving greater than 1,000 attendees. A further segmentation
shows a good distribution across different meeting sizes with meetings of 1000-1,999 attendees earning
the top spot.
Table 8. Years as Meeting Planner
Jacksonville 2016 Custom Study
Q. How long have you been involved with planning meetings?
Time Frame Overall
0-2 Year 4%
3-5 Years 5
6-9 Years 21
10+ Years 70
Table 9. CMP Certification
Jacksonville 2016 Custom Study
Do you currently hold a CMP (or
similar) certification? Overall
DestinationMAP
Sample
CMP 26% 33%
Non-CMP 74 67
Table 10. Size of Largest Meeting Planned in Past Two Years
Jacksonville 2016 Custom Study
Q. In the past two years, how many people attended the largest meeting/event that you planned?
Largest Meeting Attendance Overall
Under 1,000 35%
1,000+ 65
300 – 499 12%
500 – 849 18
850 – 999 5
1,000 - 1,999 32
2,000 - 4,999 14
5,000 - 9,999 9
10,000+ 11%
DestinationMAP Custom Report – Jacksonville 2016
STR, Inc. 15
The dominant age grouping of Custom Study meeting planners is in the 50+ category. Southern and
Midwest states dominate in terms of residence.
Table 11. Age of Meeting Planner
Jacksonville 2016 Custom Study
What is your age? Overall
20-29 4%
30-39 9
40-49 21
50+ 61
Preferred to not answer 5
Table 12. State Residence of Meeting Planner
Jacksonville 2016 Custom Study
Only showing states with 4% or more overall
State Overall
South 56%
Florida 19
Texas 9
Georgia 7
Oklahoma 5
Alabama 4
District of Columbia 4
South Carolina 4
Midwest 26
Minnesota 9
Illinois 4
Indiana 4
Kansas 4
Michigan 4
Northeast 11
New York 4
Pennsylvania 4
West 5
DestinationMAP Custom Report – Jacksonville 2016
STR, Inc. 16
Section 2: Major Meetings
The following section provides an overview of the meetings market from the Jacksonville Custom Study.
This section is intended as a description of the state of the meetings market relative to Jacksonville’s
position.
Organization
2.1 Familiarity with Nine Jacksonville Custom Study Cities/Destinations
2.2 Past Major Meetings
2.3 Planned Future Meetings
2.1: Familiarity with Nine Jacksonville Custom Cities/Destinations
Meeting planners were asked to indicate whether they were familiar enough with each of the eight
locations covered in the Jacksonville Custom Study to provide a reliable opinion as a meeting
destination.
A near majority of meeting planners stated that they have visited or are familiar with Jacksonville,
Tampa, Louisville, Savannah and Charlotte. Less than a third of meeting planners had any familiarity with
Birmingham and Richmond. The overall percentage of respondents who have visited or are familiar with
any particular destination ranged from 23% up to 75%.
In the national DestinationMAP 2015 Study, Tampa and Charlotte earned the top spots. Tampa’s strong
position is confirmed in the Jacksonville Custom Study while Charlotte drops behind Louisville.
Table 13. Familiarity with Nine Markets: Jacksonville 2016 Custom Study
Q. Select all destinations for which you can provide a general impression as a meeting destination site.
Overall
City Custom DestinationMAP
Jacksonville 75% 6%
Tampa 63 16
Louisville 53 7
Savannah 49 -
Charlotte 47 15
Daytona Beach 40 -
Birmingham 28 -
Richmond 23 -
DestinationMAP Custom Report – Jacksonville 2016
STR, Inc. 17
2.2: Past Major Meetings
Respondents to the study were asked to indicate whether they had held a major convention, trade
show, conference or seminar in the past two years at each of the nine locations covered by the
Jacksonville Custom Study. A major meeting was defined as a meeting with 200 or more participants.
Affirmative answers ranged from a low of 4% for Richmond and Birmingham to a high of 30% of
planners who held a major meeting in Jacksonville. The number who had held past meeting in Tampa (at
26%) was almost as high as Jacksonville.
Two-fifths of custom study respondents had not held a past 2-year major meeting in any of the
competitive set destinations. Section 6.2 of this report shows Orlando and Atlanta as the top meeting
spots among Jacksonville potential meeting planners.
Table 14. Held Major Meeting in Past Two Years (200+ participants): Jacksonville 2016 Custom Study
Q. In the past 2 years, have you held a major (200+ attendees) convention/trade show/conference/seminar in any
of the destinations below? (Select all that apply)
Overall
City Percent Rank
Jacksonville 30% 1
Tampa 26 2
Louisville 16 3
Charlotte 11 4
Savannah 9 5
Daytona Beach 7 6
Birmingham 4 7
Richmond 4 7
None of the above 39 -
DestinationMAP Custom Report – Jacksonville 2016
STR, Inc. 18
2.3: Planned Future Meetings
The table below shows the client-identified competitor destinations that meeting planners have
selected for major meetings in the next two years. Overall, Jacksonville earns the top spot followed by
Tampa, Charlotte, and Daytona Beach respectively.
It is notable that a significant proportion of meeting planners indicated that their organization(s) would
not be holding future meetings at any of these listed sites. It is possible that the sample of meeting
planners for the Custom Study may be holding major meetings less regularly than observed in the
national DestinationMAP2015 cohort of meeting planners. Results presented in Section 6.2 suggest that
a significant proportion of planners may be considering Orlando and Atlanta (among others) as a
location for a future meeting.
Table 15. Where Major Meetings Will Be Held in Next Two Years (200+ participants): Jacksonville 2016 Study
Q. In the next 2 years, will you hold a major (200+ attendees) convention/trade show/conference/seminar in any of
the destinations below? (Select all that apply)
Overall
City Percent Rank
Jacksonville 23% 1
Tampa 16 2
Charlotte 12 3
Daytona Beach 12 3
Savannah 9 5
Louisville 7 6
Richmond 4 7
Birmingham 2 8
None of the above 53 -
DestinationMAP Custom Report – Jacksonville 2016
STR, Inc. 19
Section 3: Overall Reputation
Meeting planners and decision makers were asked in the Jacksonville Custom Study and in 2015
DestinationMAP to rate destinations as convention sites and for business meetings. Detailed findings,
as they relate to Jacksonville and the eight destinations in both the Jacksonville Custom Study and
DestinationMAP 2015, are provided in the following section.
Overview
3.1 Convention Site, Business Meeting Site and Vacation Destination Ratings
3.2 Competitive Set Ratings Comparison
3.1: Convention Site, Business Meeting Site and Vacation Destination Ratings
Meeting planners rated destinations on a ten-point scale as a convention site, as a site for business
meetings, and as a vacation site. The ratings for Jacksonville are presented in the table below. For
comparison, the average ratings across the Custom Study and all 40 DestinationMAP destinations for
each segment are also included.
Jacksonville exceeds the average ratings for all custom destinations. Average scores in the Custom study
surpassed the results from the national DestinationMAP 2015 sample, a not unexpected result given the
CVB-provided contacts utilized for this study. The greatest gains in perception scores from the national
sample to the Custom Study sample fell on the convention center. In other words, contacts already
identified by Jacksonville rate the convention center significantly higher than meeting planner contacts
(who indicated familiarity with Jacksonville) sourced nationally.
Table 16. Average Rating as a Convention, Business Meeting Site and Vacation Site: Jacksonville Custom Study
Rated on a 1-10 scale where 1=”poor” and 10=”excellent”
Jacksonville Custom Study
Custom Average 8 Destinations
Jacksonville Average DestinationMAP
Average 40 DestinationMAP
Convention site 7.6 7.2 6.6 8.0 Business meeting site 8.0 7.5 7.8 8.1 Vacation site 7.7 7.2 7.3 7.6
DestinationMAP Custom Report – Jacksonville 2016
STR, Inc. 20
3.2: Competitive Set Ratings Comparison
The graphic below displays Jacksonville’s position across each of the rating segments, in direct
comparison to Jacksonville’s selected competitive set. It is important to note that the information in the
below chart is same as the original 2015 DestinationMAP Volume II study, and draws its results from a
national sample of meeting planners who were familiar with Jacksonville market.
DestinationMAP Custom Report – Jacksonville 2016
STR, Inc. 21
The graphic below shows the rankings within Jacksonville’s competitive set for each type of destination
rating. In contrast to the previous graphic, the ratings are derived directly from sampled meeting
planners surveyed in the Jacksonville Custom Study. Jacksonville shows a third place position as a
convention site and ties for second (with Charlotte) as a site for business meeting. Tampa takes the top
spot as a convention site and as a site for conducting business meetings. Jacksonville landed in the
middle of the pack position as a vacation site. Birmingham is consistently in last place across all areas.
DestinationMAP Custom Report – Jacksonville 2016
STR, Inc. 22
Table 17. Custom Study Rating as a Convention Site
Rated on a 1-10 scale where 1=”poor” and 10=”excellent”
Jacksonville Custom Study Average Rank Tampa 8.3 1 Charlotte 7.9 2 Jacksonville 7.6 3 Louisville 7.4 4 Savannah 7.2 5 Richmond 6.7 6 Daytona Beach 6.4 7 Birmingham 6.2 8
Table 18. Custom Study Rating as a Business Meeting Site
Rated on a 1-10 scale where 1=”poor” and 10=”excellent”
Jacksonville Custom Study Average Rank Tampa 8.6 1 Charlotte 8.0 2 Jacksonville 8.0 3 Savannah 7.8 4 Louisville 7.4 5 Richmond 7.0 6 Daytona Beach 6.5 7 Birmingham 6.3 8
Table 19. Custom Study Rating as a Vacation Site
Rated on a 1-10 scale where 1=”poor” and 10=”excellent”
Jacksonville Custom Study Average Rank Savannah 8.9 1 Tampa 8.6 2 Daytona Beach 8.1 3 Jacksonville 7.7 4 Charlotte 6.6 5 Louisville 6.5 6 Richmond 6.1 7 Birmingham 4.9 8
DestinationMAP Custom Report – Jacksonville 2016
STR, Inc. 23
Section 4: Destination Image
A major component of DestinationMAP and the Jacksonville Custom Study is the evaluation of
destinations on a set of image attributes, including travel image, negative travel image and conference
or resort hotel image. Meeting planners evaluated destinations on each attribute. They were also
asked to indicate how important each attribute is to their site selection process.
Throughout this section the image perceptions of a destination are indexed against a 5-city
DestinationMAP average. For example, if a destination is rated favorably on a characteristic by 60% of
respondents and the DestinationMAP average for that characteristic is 40%, then the destination will
have an index of 60/40 (*100) or 150. When presented graphically, positive image and convention
center indexes are centered at 100. Generally, an index of 80 to 120 is considered to be normal, or close
to average.
The following section provides detailed findings of Jacksonville’s image among meeting planners,
regularly breaking the attributes on which Jacksonville is evaluated into broad categories to show areas
in which a destination excels or falters.
Overview
4.1 Site Selection Criteria Relative Importance
4.2 Positive Travel Image
4.3 Competitive Set Performance: Positive Travel Image
4.4 Deterrents to Site Selection
4.5 Negative Travel Image
4.6 Competitive Set Performance: Negative Travel Image
4.7 Convention Center Selection Criteria Relative Importance
4.8 Convention Center Image
4.9 Competitive Set Performance: Convention Center Image
DestinationMAP Custom Report – Jacksonville 2016
STR, Inc. 24
4.1: Site Selection Criteria Relative Importance
As demonstrated in Volume I of DestinationMAP 2015, image criteria can be split into three categories:
logistical, environmental and recreational considerations. An organization is not likely to select a
meeting site that does not meet its logistical requirements. Environmental and recreational
considerations are also very important and can be the differentiating factors in the choice between two
destinations of similar logistical appeal. The chart below demonstrates the considerations that are
considered “very important” for meeting planners.
DestinationMAP Custom Report – Jacksonville 2016
STR, Inc. 25
4.2: Positive Travel Image
The graph below provides details on the travel image profile of Jacksonville. Above average ratings are
noted in blue while below average ratings are noted in red.
Jacksonville stands well above the Custom Study norm for the majority of environmental and
logistical considerations.
Strongest scores go to Jacksonville’s perceived willingness to provide concessions and moderate
lodging costs (both logistical concerns). The weakest marks fall on being considered a “popular
place,” “different/unique,” interesting culture” and “good nightlife.”
DestinationMAP Custom Report – Jacksonville 2016
STR, Inc. 26
Below are the percentages from which the charted indices on the previous page were derived.
Table 20. Travel Image Site Considerations
Total Percent of Respondents that Consider Characteristic Applies to Jacksonville
Q. Please check any quality that applies to each location as a travel destination?
Type of Consideration Consideration
Percent Indicating Attribute Applies
Environmental
Wonderful climate 72%
Scenic setting/scenery 58
Clean / attractive place 56
Family oriented 53
Friendly residents 46
Low crime rate / safe 35
Different / unique 25
Open minded community 25
Popular place 25
Logistical
Moderate lodging costs 74%
Good value for the money 51
Convenient airline service 47
Adequate number of hotel rooms 44
Willing to provide concessions 44
Easy for delegates to get to 42
Upscale hotels 42
Inexpensive to get to 35
Good local transportation 25
Recreational
Casual and/or affordable dining options 72%
Good outdoor recreation 67
Variety of things to do 56
Pre and post event tourism opportunities 54
Ease of access to nature 53
Quality of food 49
Upscale food options 46
Good shopping 35
Interesting culture/ history/museums 28
Good nightlife 26
DestinationMAP Custom Report – Jacksonville 2016
STR, Inc. 27
4.3: Competitive Set Performance: Positive Travel Image
This chart compares Jacksonville’s travel image to the competitive set of destinations: Charlotte,
Louisville, Savannah and Tampa. Jacksonville outperforms the competitive set on four considerations –
moderate lodging costs, casual/affordable dining options, good value, and willingness to provide
concession. On all but “good value for the money,” Jackson clearly outpaces the competition.
Jacksonville trails the competitive set on good nightlife, interesting culture and being different/unique.
Tampa and, secondarily, Savannah dominate the positive site image considerations.
Jacksonville’s second place standing on two customized considerations – easy access to nature
and open minded community – is notable. Savannah lands the top position on nature access
while Tampa tops Jacksonville on perceptions of “open minded community.”
DestinationMAP Custom Report – Jacksonville 2016
STR, Inc. 28
4.4: Deterrents to Site Selection
Meetings planners generally consider the positive traits of a destination meeting location once they
have gotten past a range of factors that could rule out a meeting location. The chart below from
DestinationMAP 2015 (Volume 1) demonstrates that there are seven different considerations identified
by at least half of our meeting planner sample as being “very likely” considerations that could rule out a
potential meeting site.
DestinationMAP Custom Report – Jacksonville 2016
STR, Inc. 29
4.5: Negative Travel Image
It should be noted that on many negative image characteristics, the difference between Jacksonville and
its competitive set average is only one to three percentage points. Given the sample size and the degree
of variation, these figures are not statistically significant. Still, overall negative trends are evident
through visuals provided below.
The standout negative image differentiators between Jacksonville and its competitive set include high
crime rate, lack of public transportation, fading/declining popularity and the perception that there is
nothing to do there.
DestinationMAP Custom Report – Jacksonville 2016
STR, Inc. 30
Below are the percentages behind the chart on the previous pages.
Table 21. Likely Deterrents to Jacksonville Site Selection
Total Percent of Respondents that Consider a Characteristic Applies to Jacksonville
Q. Please check any quality that applies to each location as a travel destination?
Type of Consideration Consideration
Percent Indicating Attribute Applies
Cost
Excessive room or sales tax 5%
Unwilling to make financial/other concessions 5%
Exorbitant costs 2%
Environmental
Lack of public transportation 21%
Inconvenient airline service 18%
High crime rate 12%
Racial tension 5%
Unpleasant weather 4%
Unsanitary conditions 4%
Unfriendly local people 2%
Inappropriate for serious business meetings 0%
Other
Nothing to do there 11%
Aging hotels 9%
Fading / declining popularity 9%
Narrow minded community 4%
Recent bad publicity 0%
DestinationMAP Custom Report – Jacksonville 2016
STR, Inc. 31
4.6: Competitive Set Performance: Negative Travel Image
The graphic below presents negative destination image characteristics of Jacksonville and its
competitive set of destinations (Charlotte, Louisville, Savannah and Tampa). Jacksonville gets the top
negative position on nine of sixteen attributes. A high perceived rate of crime and the perceived lack of
convenient airline service are two key variables that planners indicate are very likely to cause them to
rule out a meeting site; Jacksonville is placed below the majority of competitors for these two attributes.
DestinationMAP Custom Report – Jacksonville 2016
STR, Inc. 32
4.7: Convention Center Selection Criteria Relative Importance
In DestinationMAP 2015 meeting planners were asked to evaluate the importance of specific attributes
in the selection of a convention center. The image below presents the convention center attributes and
the percentage of meeting planners who rated the attribute as “very important” in convention center
selection. Cost, facilities, support and technology considerations occupy the top five most important
spots, although the different types of considerations are distributed evenly across the board. This is
identical to what was presented in Volume I.
DestinationMAP Custom Report – Jacksonville 2016
STR, Inc. 33
4.8: Convention Center Image
An image profile of Jacksonville’s Prime F. Osborn III Convention Center conference center is presented
below. Perceptions associated with the conference center are classified into five categories: cost,
facilities, location, support and technology.
Planners’ feedback on most convention center related considerations provides evidence to major
challenges for Jacksonville. Jacksonville is perceived as weaker than its competitors in the facilities,
location, and support areas. In contrast, technology considerations are all above average and certain
individual attributes such as reasonable facility rental rates and a supportive convention bureau surpass
the competitive set’s norm.
DestinationMAP Custom Report – Jacksonville 2016
STR, Inc. 34
Below are the reported percentages behind the competitive set indexed charts on the previous page.
Table 22.
Convention Center Considerations
Total Percent of Respondents that Consider Characteristic Applies to Jacksonville’s Convention Center Q. Please check any quality that applies to each destination’s conference/resort hotels?
Type of Consideration Consideration
Percent Indicating Attribute Applies
Cost
Casual and/or affordable dining options 12%
Reasonable facility rental rates 11
Free Wi-Fi 9
Reasonable exhibit setup & service costs 5
Facilities
Adequate hotel rooms nearby 18%
Adequate breakout rooms 12
Adequate seating for largest sessions 11
Adequate trade exhibit facilities 11
Sufficient exhibit space 9
Good banquet facilities 5
Location
Near downtown/activity 14%
Convention hotel near meeting venue 12
Upscale hotels near convention ctr. 11
Walkability of area around convention ctr. 7
Convenient offsite food options 4
Upscale food options near convention ctr. 4
Support
Supportive convention bureau 23%
Supportive convention center staff 12
Menu flexibility 11
Excellent reputation 9
Quality on-site food 7
Labor crew easy to work with 5
Technology Fast Internet / sufficient bandwidth 12%
State-of-the-art technology 7
DestinationMAP Custom Report – Jacksonville 2016
STR, Inc. 35
As a methodological note, Custom Study perception scores on convention centers were measured
across all survey meeting planners (n=57) including those who may have indicated they “did not know”
a convention center. The number and percentage of respondents rating each convention center are
presented below. The two most familiar convention centers among Custom Study respondents are
those located in Tampa (with 44% indicating familiarity) and in Charlotte (42% familiar).
Table 23. Proportion of Meeting Planners Familiar with a Destination Convention Center
Q. Check as many qualities as apply for each convention center to the best of your knowledge. If unfamiliar,
please mark “Don’t know.”
Count of Custom Convention Center Respondents Percent Familiar
Prime F. Osborn III Convention Center (Jacksonville) 20 35%
Charlotte Convention Center (Charlotte) 24 42%
Kentucky International Convention Center (Louisville) 22 39%
Savannah International Trade & Convention Center (Savannah) 19 33%
Tampa Convention Center (Tampa) 25 44%
DestinationMAP Custom Report – Jacksonville 2016
STR, Inc. 36
4.9: Competitive Set Performance: Convention Center Image
The visual below demonstrates perception scores for Jacksonville’s convention center in comparison to
its competing markets’ convention centers. Convention centers located in Tampa and Charlotte
dominate the competitive set. Jacksonville lands no higher than a runner-up position on any one
consideration and generally falls in the middle or lower-half of the pack. Convention center facilities and
location attributes of the center show considerable weakness in comparison to the competition.
On the other hand side, perceptions as a supportive convention bureau, reasonable facility rental rates
and fast/sufficient bandwidth are considerations where the Prime F. Osborn III Convention Center ranks
favorably.
DestinationMAP Custom Report – Jacksonville 2016
STR, Inc. 37
Section 5: Marketing to Meeting Planners
Meeting planners were asked in DestinationMAP 2015 and the Jacksonville Custom Study to indicate
their experience with a destination’s marketing efforts in the past 24 months. Detailed findings, as they
relate to Jacksonville and the seven destinations in the Jacksonville Custom Study and Jacksonville in
DestinationMAP 2015, are provided in the following section.
Overview
5.1 Exposure to Marketing Activity: Summary
5.2 Exposure to Marketing Activity: Top Destinations
Section 5.1: Exposure to Marketing Activity Summary
For the eight destinations covered in the Jacksonville Custom Study, respondents were asked whether
they had been exposed to various marketing channels. This exposure information was compared to how
important meeting planners consider these channels when selecting a geographic meeting site. In the
table below, the results of the national DestinationMAP 2015 study are compared to the results from
the Jacksonville Custom Study, both of which include Jacksonville’s specific exposure percentages
compared to the average for all destinations covered in the respective surveys.
An important methodological note in comparing results of the DestinationMAP with Custom Study
results is that the two studies used two different time frame references for meeting planners’ exposure
to media. The main DestinationMAP study asked for experience in the previous 12 months with Custom
Study planners being asked for their experience from the last two years. With a longer time window in
the custom study one would expect the level of marketing activity to be higher compared to the national
study.
Even with adjusting for different time frames, the results of the Jacksonville Custom Study are different
from the marketing exposure covered in DestinationMAP. In the Jacksonville Custom Study
respondents are equally likely to be visit the website or be called on by bureau staff and less likely to see
internet ads or view trade books advertisements compared to DestinationMAP 2015.
Comparing Jacksonville to the average for all destinations in the custom study shows Jacksonville
consistently rated higher in terms of exposure to all marketing activities except trade book and internet
ads. Because the respondents in the custom study came from a Jacksonville meeting planner list, it is
not surprising that custom study respondents generally show higher exposure to these marketing
activities compared to competition.
DestinationMAP Custom Report – Jacksonville 2016
STR, Inc. 38
Table 24. Exposure to Marketing Activity
Q. Below are different types of marketing that a destination might use. Check all that applies to your experience with
each destination in the past 2 years. If not exposed to any marketing materials from a destination, check "none."
Jacksonville Custom Percent
Average 8 Custom Percent
Jacksonville DestinationMAP
Percent *
Average 40 DestinationMAP
Percent*
Visited destination website 37% 22% 34% 31%
Called on by bureau staff 37 21 38 26
Visited trade show booth 32 25 34 48
Received direct mail 25 16 31 31
Saw trade book ads 18 20 38 31
Saw internet ads 4 8 39 30 * The original DestinationMAP 2015 study asked for experience within the past 12 months.
As presented in DestinationMAP 2015 Volume II for Jacksonville, “destination website” and “trade show
booth” are highlighted as having both significant exposure and high importance. Other activities are also
important but to a lesser degree. Special consideration should be given to maintaining a quality website
and being present at trade booths because of the importance meeting planners place on these channels.
Table 25. Exposure to and Importance of Marketing Activity
Jacksonville Custom Results with DestinationMAP Importance
Q. Please indicate all that apply relative to your experience with Jacksonville in the last 2 years.
Q. Please indicate the information sources important to you in selecting a geographic meeting site.
Category
Custom Jacksonville
Exposure
DestinationMAP Rated “Very Important”
DestinationMAP Rated “Very + Somewhat
Important”
Visited destination website 37% 45% 88%
Called on by Bureau staff 37 11 59
Visited trade show booth 32 24 74
Received direct mail 25 6 47
Saw trade book ads 18 5 46
Saw Internet ads 4 8 46
Note: green shading indicates the top two most important marketing activities
DestinationMAP Custom Report – Jacksonville 2016
STR, Inc. 39
Section 5.2: Exposure to Marketing Activity - Competitive Set
The series of tables below show a breakdown of marketing activity for each city in Jacksonville’s
competitive set, separated by each different type of media. Rankings are also shown in the rightmost
columns. Within each of the following tables, the competitive set is listed in order by the destination
with the highest overall exposure (for each type of media category) at the top. The tables for each type
of media are provided in the order of the most important marketing media first, per DestinationMAP
2015 Volume 2 results; in this case “visited destination website” is the most important.
Table 26. Exposure to Marketing Activity: Visited destination website
Q. Please indicate all that apply relative to your experience with these destinations in the past two years.
Destination Overall Rank
Jacksonville 37% 1
Tampa 33 2
Charlotte 28 3
Savannah 23 4
Louisville 19 5
Birmingham 12 6
Daytona Beach 11 7
Richmond 11 7
Table 27. Exposure to Marketing Activity: Visited trade show booth
Destination Overall Rank
Tampa 37% 1
Jacksonville 32 2
Daytona Beach 30 3
Louisville 26 4
Charlotte 25 5
Birmingham 21 6
Savannah 18 7
Richmond 16 8
DestinationMAP Custom Report – Jacksonville 2016
STR, Inc. 40
Table 28.
Exposure to Marketing Activity: Called on by bureau staff
Destination Overall Rank
Jacksonville 37% 1
Louisville 32 2
Tampa 30 3
Daytona Beach 19 4
Birmingham 18 5
Charlotte 16 6
Savannah 16 6
Richmond 5 8
Table 29. Exposure to Marketing Activity: Received direct mail
Destination Overall Rank
Jacksonville 25% 1
Tampa 25% 1
Louisville 19% 3
Daytona Beach 18% 4
Savannah 16% 5
Charlotte 11% 6
Birmingham 9% 7
Richmond 9% 7
Table 30. Exposure to Marketing Activity: Saw trade book ads
Destination Overall Rank
Tampa 28% 1
Louisville 26% 2
Birmingham 21% 3
Charlotte 21% 3
Daytona Beach 21% 3
Jacksonville 18% 6
Savannah 18% 6
Richmond 7% 8
DestinationMAP Custom Report – Jacksonville 2016
STR, Inc. 41
Table 31. Exposure to Marketing Activity: Saw internet ads
Destination Overall Rank
Tampa 14% 1
Charlotte 12% 2
Savannah 12% 2
Daytona Beach 9% 4
Birmingham 7% 5
Louisville 5% 6
Jacksonville 4% 7
Richmond 2% 8
DestinationMAP Custom Report – Jacksonville 2016
STR, Inc. 42
Section 6: Jacksonville Custom Questions
For the custom portion of the study, Jacksonville provided STR with a range of pertinent topics to cover
in this customized study. Detailed findings are provided in the following section.
Overview
6.1 Jacksonville Venues Selected or Considered
6.3 Alternative Destinations Selected
6.4 Reasons for Not Choosing Jacksonville
6.1: Jacksonville Venues Selected or Considered
About four of five meeting planners had either considered or held a major meeting in Jacksonville in the
past two years. A little under a third of meeting planners had held a 200+ attendee meeting in
Jacksonville in the past two years with about half of planners having considered Jacksonville but selected
a different destination. One out of five meeting planners did not consider Jacksonville for a major
meeting.
Table 32. Major (200+ attendee) Meetings - Jacksonville 2016 Custom Study
Overall
Considered But Selected a Different Destination 49%
Held Major Meeting in Jacksonville in Past Two Years 30
Have Not Considered Jacksonville for a Major Meeting 21
Of the 30% of meeting planners who held a meeting in Jacksonville in the past two years, the Hyatt
Regency Riverfront emerged as dominant choice with roughly three-quarters of this subset of planners
selecting this as their meeting venue. The remaining portion of meetings held was roughly spread
among four other area venues (Renaissance World Golf Village, Jacksonville Veterans Memorial Arena,
Omni Jacksonville Hotel and Sawgrass Marriot Golf Resort & Spa).
DestinationMAP Custom Report – Jacksonville 2016
STR, Inc. 43
6.2: Alternative Destinations Selected
All Jacksonville Custom Study planners were asked to provide a list of up to three alternative
destinations they had considered in lieu of holding a meeting in Jacksonville. Alternative destinations
were diverse, covering meeting sites in 23 states and Canada. The top single market most mentioned as
an alternative to Jacksonville was Orlando, with second place going to Tampa. Orlando was also
mentioned as the top destination for Jacksonville’s lost meeting business (see Table 34).
A range of 53 competition destinations were identified by planners for this survey. This provides some
evidence that Jacksonville finds itself in an arguably more competitive meetings market position than
other top North American destinations. Most top North American destination markets are competing
directly against other top markets for meeting business. Jacksonville is competing against a larger
competitive set that goes beyond the top 40 markets. Table 36 in the Appendix provides a complete
listing of meeting site alternatives to Jacksonville.
Table 33. Top Alternative Destinations Considered to Jacksonville – Jacksonville 2016 Custom Study
In the past two years, what were the top three alternative destinations that you considered as a meeting site instead
of Jacksonville?
City Overall Orlando 53% Tampa 32 Atlanta 28 Savannah 12 St. Augustine 9 Charlotte 7 Daytona 7 Ft. Lauderdale 7 Las Vegas 7
*Note: Respondent may have identified up to 3 locations.
Full list displayed in appendix.
DestinationMAP Custom Report – Jacksonville 2016
STR, Inc. 44
Jacksonville’s Custom study planners are more regionalized in their site choices and alternatives for than
we have observed with other top 40 North American destination markets. A clear majority of
respondents noted that they had also considered an alternative Florida destination to host their
meeting, followed by locations in the state of Georgia (with 23 mentions).
DestinationMAP Custom Report – Jacksonville 2016
STR, Inc. 45
Jacksonville Custom Study planners who did not hold a meeting in Jacksonville were asked to provide a
list of up to three alternative destinations where they held meetings. Orlando again leads the pack
followed by Tampa.
Table 34.
Destinations to Which Jacksonville Lost Business – Jacksonville 2016 Custom Study
In the past two years, what were the top three alternative destinations that you considered as a meeting site instead of
Jacksonville? Which (if any) of these destinations did you [ultimately] select to host a meeting? (Enter all that apply)
City
% of Respondents not Selecting Jacksonville
(n=40)
Orlando 48% Tampa 18 Chicago 10 Miami 10 Atlanta 8 Daytona Beach 5 Denver 5 Ft. Lauderdale 5 Las Vegas 5 Louisville KY 5 San Antonio 5 Savannah 5
DestinationMAP Custom Report – Jacksonville 2016
STR, Inc. 46
6.3: Reasons for Not Choosing Jacksonville
Receiving a better incentive package from another destination and the inability to use a single property
for meeting/event room block were the leading causes of planners selecting an alternative destination
to Jacksonville for their upcoming meetings/events. The Jacksonville CVB may wish to concentrate its
coordination efforts as well as marketing/sales efforts on those areas where it can be most effective in
converting “lost business” to booked clients. Of note, the CVB may have some sway in offering better
meeting packages than its competition (38% of lost business) or in influencing clients’ decision-makers
(30% preferred an alternative) or board members (25% wanted a different destination) to choose
Jacksonville for their next meeting.
Table 35. Reasons for Not Choosing Jacksonville – Jacksonville 2016 Custom Study
For what reason(s) did you decide against booking in Jacksonville? Please select all that apply below:
Did Not Choose
Jacksonville
Alternatives
Got a better package from another destination 38%
Preferred a different location 30
Board members wanted a different destination 25
Not in our standard rotation 15
Looking for a different experience 3
Availability
Prefer single property headquarters for our room block 35%
Meeting space was not available when we needed it 25
Limited hotel offerings 20
Lacking adequate meeting facilities 18
Convention center was not available 3
Logistics
Difficult for attendees to get to 23%
Poor local transportation 8
Costs
Hotel rates were too high 18%
Cost of meeting space 10
General
No incentives offered 10%
Not a place I would consider 3
Past experience 3
Poor reputation 3
Other contractual obligations 3
Other - Please specify 25
DestinationMAP Custom Report – Jacksonville 2016
STR, Inc. 47
Other verbatim reasons for selecting an alternative destination to Jacksonville are provided below:
CVB was difficult to work with, most CVB's assist you with the housing package, center proposal,
etc. The Jacksonville CVB did not.
Client's budget choice
We met in JAX 2012, low attendance
I am booking in 2018
Not sure if they have ever bid on the RFPs sent out
Not enough to do downtown, downtown didn't feel entirely safe.
Have not yet selected a city for 2018
Only know Jacksonville as the home of the Florida/Georgia game
I don’t know much about Jacksonville
North - we want warmer
DestinationMAP Custom Report – Jacksonville 2016
STR, Inc. 48
Additional Inquiries
The DestinationMAP data, when coupled with STR data, provide a comprehensive view of meetings to
representatives of the hospitality industry. With new techniques and ways of segmenting and
visualizing the data there are opportunities to go beyond the topics and details provided in this report.
For more specific insights into the nature of the meetings market, the performance of specific meetings
in a destination and the preferences of meeting planners, contact us:
STR, Inc.
615-824-8664
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Use of DestinationMAP
The STR/DestinationMAP suite of products is a publication of STR and is intended solely for use by paid subscribers.
Reproduction or distribution of the DestinationMAP materials, in whole or in part, without permission of STR is prohibited and
subject to legal action. Site licenses are available. Ownership, distribution and use of the DestinationMAP suite of products is
subject to the terms of the contract you have entered into with STR. STR does not endorse any particular organization, and no
strategic advice or marketing recommendation is intended or implied.
DestinationMAP Custom Report – Jacksonville 2016
STR, Inc. 49
Appendix
Table 36. Alternative Destinations to Jacksonville (All) – Jacksonville 2016 Custom Study
In the past two years, what were the top three alternative destinations that you considered as a meeting site instead
of Jacksonville?
Mentions
Verbatim Response (N)
Orlando 30 Tampa 18 Atlanta 16
Savannah 7
Charlotte 4
Daytona 4
Las Vegas 4
St. Augustine 4
Ft. Lauderdale 4
Chicago 3
Dallas 3
Miami 3
New Orleans 3 San Antonio 3
Anaheim 2
Arizona 2
Austin 2
Birmingham 2
Charleston 2
Denver 2
Memphis 2
Nashville 2
Tucson 2
Atlantic Beach 1 Baltimore, MD 1
Cincinnati 1
Cleveland, OH 1
Costa Mesa, California 1
Cruise Ship 1
Des Moines 1
Fort Myer 1
Greensboro, NC 1
Hilton Head 1
Houston 1
Indianapolis 1
Lexington, KY 1 Los Angeles 1
Louisville 1
DestinationMAP Custom Report – Jacksonville 2016
STR, Inc. 50
Table 36: CONTINUED
Marksville, LA 1 Minneapolis 1
Naples 1
Norfolk VA 1
Palm Springs 1
Panhandle Gulf Coast Area 1
Philadelphia, PA 1
Phoenix 1
Providence, RI 1
Reston, Virginia 1
San Diego 1
Scottsdale 1
Toronto 1 TX 1
West Palm Beach 1
Grand Total 157
DestinationMAP Custom Report – Jacksonville 2016
STR, Inc. 51
Table 37. Destinations to Which Jacksonville Lost Business – Jacksonville 2016 Custom Study
In the past two years, what were the top three alternative destinations that you considered as a meeting site instead of
Jacksonville? Which (if any) of these destinations did you [ultimately] select to host a meeting? (Enter all that apply)
Verbatim Response Mentions
(N)
Orlando 19 Tampa 7
Chicago 4
Miami 4
Atlanta 3
Daytona Beach 2 Denver 2
Ft. Lauderdale 2
Las Vegas 2
Louisville KY 2
San Antonio 2
Savannah 2
Atlantic Beach 1
Birmingham 1
Cincinnati 1
Cleveland, OH 1
Dallas 1 Hilton Head 1
Houston, TX 1
Long Beach 1
Marksville 1
Memphis 1
Milwaukee 1
Minneapolis 1
New Orleans - Hyatt 1
Norfolk VA 1
Panhandle Gulf Coast Area 1
Philadelphia, PA 1
Phoenix 1 Providence 1
San Diego CA 1
Scottsdale 1
St. Augustine, FL 1
Toronto 1
Tucson, AZ 1
TX 1
West Palm Beach 1
Grand Total 76