HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-13-2013 PCC Agenda PacketAny writings or documents provided to a majority of the Promotional Coordinating Committee regarding
any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the Administration office of the City
of San Luis Obispo at 990 Palm Street during normal business hours.
Agenda
Promotional Coordinating Committee
City of San Luis Obispo
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
5:30 p.m. Regular Meeting Council Hearing Room
990 Palm Street
The Goals of the City of San Luis Obispo Promotional Coordinating Committee are to (1) Improve the
quality of life available to all residents of and visitors to San Luis Obispo and (2) Promote, in a manner
consistent with long-range community goals, the development of San Luis Obispo as a regional and
tourist center.
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Marco Rizzo
PUBLIC COMMENT: Each speaker is limited to three minutes of public comment
CONSENT ITEMS
C.1 Minutes of the Meeting on February 13, 2013
C.2 Community Promotions Budget Report
C.3 Public Relations Report
C.4 Grants-in-Aid Support Report
C.5 Visitors Center Report
C.6 Events Brochure – Campaign Report
C.7 TOT Report
Promotional Coordination Committee
BUSINESS ITEMS
1. SAVOR 2013 SPONSORSHIP
The committee will continue the consideration to support SAVOR 2013 in partnership with the TBID.
2. SLO HAPPENINGS BROCHURE REVIEW
Verdin will present the draft of the quarterly brochure for April- June and opportunities for revised
advertising approach to the current campaign for upcoming brochures.
3. VISITOR SERVICES TEAR OFF MAP
The committee will review the design of the tear off map produced by the Chamber of Commerce.
4. ELECTION OF CHAIR & VICE-CHAIR
The committee will elect a Chair and Vice-Chair for the term of April 2013 to March 2014.
5. TOURISM RESEARCH STUDY RESULTS
Staff will present a recap of the partner report the City opted to participate in for the recently
completed Visit San Luis Obispo County tourism research study.
PCC LIAISON REPORTS & COMMUNICATION
At this time Committee members make announcements, report on activities, refer to staff issues for study
and report back to the Committee at a subsequent meeting.
1. GIA UPDATE – LIAISON REPORT
2. TBID BOARD REPORT – TBID Minutes from February 13 and February 19
3. TOURISM PROGRAM UPDATE
ADJOURN.
POSTING STATEMENT: I, Molly Cano, Tourism Manager, do hereby certify that on March 8, 2013, by
5:00 p.m., a true and correct copy of this agenda was posted on the bulletin board outside City Hall. Internet
access to agendas and related material is available at www.slocity.org.
Promotional Coordinating Committee
Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
5:30 pm
City Hall - Council Hearing Room
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Marco Rizzo
PRESENT: Pearce, Yukelson, Fidler, Cox, Palazzo
STAFF PRESENT: Molly Cano, Tourism Manager; Claire Clark, Economic Development
Manager
PUBLIC COMMENT
Ermina Karim from the SLO Chamber of Commerce thanked the PCC for sponsorship of the
Welcome sign which should be unveiled later this spring. She announced that the
Chamber’s office move into the new location was on schedule to happen by the end of the
February. Karim also requested the opportunity to come before the PCC in the next few
months to present opportunities for partnership through funding of various Chamber
programs and services.
Megan Riviore from Verdin requested the opportunity to come before committee in March
to discuss new advertising opportunities for the reallocation of the budget for the brochure
advertising.
CONSENT AGENDA
ACTION: Moved by Yukelson /Fidler to approve the consent agenda with the
spelling change made to Fidler’s name in the minutes.
Motion carried 6:0
BUSINESS ITEMS
1. SAVOR 2013
Faith Wells from Visit San Luis Obispo County presented the sponsorship opportunities for
SAVOR 2013 for the committee’s consideration. The sponsorship packages were presented
at 4 levels: $30,000 for the Welcome bag, $45,000 for the ShareSLO stage, $65,000 for the
SAVOR Run in San Luis Obispo, and $75,000 to include all of the above. Staff noted that the
TBID approved the sponsorship of the SAVOR Run for $65,000 but was looking to the PCC
DRAFT
&
Promotional Coordinating Committee Minutes
Page 2
for the opportunity to cover the remaining $10,000 for the all-inclusive sponsorship
benefits for the city. The committee discussed the opportunity but was unclear on what
their contribution would be funding and asked staff for clarification at the March meeting
for the use of the logo on SAVOR promotions and what the value of the opportunity was to
the PCC.
2. EVENTS PROMOTION SUBCOMMITTEE
Commissioner Fidler reported on the joint-subcommittee meeting including the recap of
the SLO GarnFondo event. She also presented the funding request of $9000 for Roll out the
Barrels in June 2013 as discussed in the January sub-committee meeting. Fidler stated that
the recommendation from the sub-committee for the PCC’s support for the event was
$4,000. Commissioner Pearce commented that the TBID approved sponsorship of the event
during their February meeting at $5000.
ACTION: Moved by Cox/ Palazzo to sponsor Roll out the Barrels at $4,000.
Motion carried 6:0
3. BUDGET & COMMUNITY PROMOTIONS PROGRAM 2013-15
The committee received the report and general recommendation from the task force for
the 2-year budget strategy and general allocation. The task force commented that based on
the successful use of the budget in the current year, there were only minimal adjustments
were made within the programs to accommodate the new Tourism Manager/ support
expenses.
ACTION: Moved by Pearce/ Fidler to approve the 2013-15 budget outline as
presented.
Motion carried 6:0
The committee requested that all contractor proposals and funding requests be made
before the full committee for the consideration and committee direction to the task force.
The committee requested that staff ask the contractor to flag new contract areas or major
changes when the written proposal is submitted. They also requested that the proposals be
distributed in the agenda packets in preparation of the meeting.
4. 2013-14 GIA FUNDING ALLOCATION
The Committee discussed the 2013-14 budget allocation for the GIA programs and support.
This allocation is for the direction of the GIA Task Force as they review the grant requests.
ACTION: Moved by Cox/ Yukleson to allocate $90,000 to GIA event funding and
$25,000 to GIA support.
Motion carried 6:0
COMMITTEE COMMUNICATION
C.1-2
Promotional Coordinating Committee Minutes
Page 3
Commissioner Pearce updated the committee on the discussions at the February TBID
meeting, noting that the January TBID meeting was cancelled due to lack of quorum. He
informed that committee that the TBID would be holding a special meeting in February to
discuss time sensitive agenda items that were not able to be considered due to time
constraints in the regular February meeting.
Molly Cano gave the committee the tourism program update. The update included a recap
of the January LA Travel show the city attended that drew over 28,000 attendees from all
over the LA region. The city’s booth featured a photo booth that captured images of over
300 groups and provided the printed pictures as takeaways with the
sanluisobispovacations.com website. The representation also garnered over 600 new
consumer newsletter sign-ups which increased the email distribution list to over 10,000.
Cano will be traveling to the Bay area for a similar northern CA travel show in February.
Cano also updated the committee on the progress of the wayfinding signs. The readability
test was completed in January and the legibility of the signs was approved. The next step is
to work with the City Engineer the placement of the initial 6 signs to be installed later this
spring. Cano also commented on the advisory body interview process that is underway to
appoint a new member to the PCC to fill the seat vacated by Commissioner Yukelson as his
term ends in March.
Meeting adjourned at 6:50 pm
C.1-3
Community Promotions Budget 2012-13
Budget 2012-13 Amount
Budget 386,500$
2011-12 Carry Over 40,000$
Total Budget 426,500$
Expenditure Last Updated 3/7/2013
Expenditure Committed Contracts Other Expenditures
Available
Balance Contractor
Grants-in-Aid Program 125,000$ 25,000$ 96,885$ 3,115$ City Administration
Events & Activities 80,000$ 32,000$ 44,000$ 4,000$ City Administration
Visitors Center 76,500$ 76,500$ -$ Chamber of Commerce
PR Contract 55,000$ 55,000$ -$ Chamber of Commerce
Downtown Maps 7,500$ 7,500$ -$ Chamber of Commerce
Beautification 25,000$ 25,000$ -$ Chamber of Commerce/sign
Support Cost 17,500$ 15,000$ 2,500$ City Administration
Style Guide*40,000$ 40,000$ -$ Pierre Rademaker Design
Total 426,500$ 228,500$ 188,385$ 9,615$
Remaining Balance -$
C.2-1
Report to City of SLO- PCC Committee
Public Relations Contract
February 2013
Media Releases:
Worked with City and Rosetta on launch of SLO Ambassador as part of ShareSLO
campaign. Wrote release announcing Bentley Murdock as the new ambassador.
Distributed locally, followed up with personal contact and helped set up interviews.
Meet with History Center’s Executive Director to discuss upcoming exhibit opening.
Wrote two press releases focused on the exhibit and the unique dinner in conjunction
with the opening. Waiting on distribution until closer to date.
Wrote and distributed release on Winter Mezzo Festival for the March concerts.
Wrote release for Remnant’s summer show. Waiting on release until contest is
finalized.
Working with Botanical Gardens on Art Eco event. Event has an extended time frame so
working on ideas to keep momentum of marketing going.
Continue to work on developing releases about itineraries for visiting SLO- for the wine
lover, for the adventure enthusiast, etc. Already used a few of the itineraries in contacts
with travel media regarding setting up press trips.
Media Contacts:
Worked with Chris Reynolds from LA Times a few month back on piece about top 2013
destinations- piece debuted on Feb. 17th both in print and online.
http://www.latimes.com/travel/la-tr-placesin2013-20130217,0,5799085.story
LA Times also picked up release sent for an article about SLO Marathon on Feb. 11th-
http://www.latimes.com/travel/deals/la-trb-san-luis-obispo-marathon-returns-
20130207,0,2853725.story
FB
Hosted writer from The Mom’s Review website. Article appeared as review of Apple
Farm with story about SLO.
http://themomreviews.com/2013/02/21/san-luis-obispo-apple-farm-inn-review.html
Hosted Fodor’s CA guide writer Cheryl Crabtree for a two day press visit. Continue to
follow up and work with Cheryl on contacts and content for the update of the book.
Continue to work with Travel Writer from Awareness Magazine. She is planning a “Car
Free” trip to SLO in March to highlight our car free program. Currently working on
itinerary.
Circulation: 70,000
Worked with LA Parent magazine on an article about Spring Break getaways. Article is
out and is included in dropbox account.
Circulation: 94,017
Worked with San Joaquin Parents and Kids Magazine on a SLO article including Bubble
Gum Alley. Article is in the month’s edition-
http://issuu.com/sanjoaquinmagazine/docs/sjkids_march13/29
Sent info and photos for a story on SLO in upcoming edition of Wine Country This
Week. Will be in next issue.
Working on coordinating a trip for Polish Travel Writer who will be in SLO this fall. He
writes for natemat.pl, which he says is the Polish equivalent to the Huffington Post.
Working with local writer for the Mommy Files and how to highlight SLO more on the
website.
Working with Expedia.com’s International Travel Guide to include San Luis Obispo
through new article and photos.
Sent San Luis Obispo information and guides to Place2Go Internaitonal Tourism Fair in
Croatia.
Working with travel writer from American Way Magazine, the in-flight publication for
American Airlines. Writer was here visiting SLO in March to research the article.
Sent information on Madonna Inn for an adventure hotel story in Luxury Travel
magazine.
FB
Continue to work on building and growing contact lists as well as establishing contacts
at key media outlets.
Meeting monthly with Rosetta (TBID’s Advertising agency) to collaborate on ideas and
opportunities.
Working with Cal Poly’s Open House, will have San Luis Obispo booth throughout
upcoming April event weekend. Also working with Orientation Programs department to
tie San Luis Obispo in more with the work that they do in contacting potential
students/parents.
FB
Grants- in-Aid Marketing Support- Feb. 2013
VC PR SM EC EL MTG ST PC
Ballet Theatre X X X X X X
Canzona Women's Ensemble X X X X X X
Central Coast Children's Choir X X X X X
I Madonnari- CCP X X X X X X
Civic Ballet X X X X X X
City to Sea- CC X X X X X X
Central Coast Writers Conference X X X X X X
Bioneers X X X X X X D
Festival Mozaic X X X X X D X
FPAC- BravoSLO X X X X X X
SLO Botanical Garden- Art Eco X X X X X X
GALA-Pride Week X X X X X X
History Center of San Luis Obispo County X X X X X X
Jewish Community Center- Film Fest X X X X X X
San Luis Obispo Blues Society X X X
San Luis Obispo County Band X X X X X X
Downtown Association- Santa's House X X X X X X
Museum of Art- Plein Air X X X X X D X
Soccer Club- Summer Tournament X X
Symphony- Mission Tour X X X X X X
Vocal Arts Ensemble X X X X X X
Black is current month, gray is past work, P is for pending work, D is for Did not workout
21 Total; 21 served to date
VC- Dropped off materials for display in Visitor Center; brochures, posters, etc.
PR- Sent out Press Release to local media list
SM- Ran event through Social Media outlets
EC- Included in Event Calendar one-sheet sent out to local hoteliers, wineries, etc.
EL- Included in Event Listings sent to local media highlighting upcoming local events
MTG- Meet with Groups in person to offer public relations advice and support
ST- Sell Tickets for events through the Visitor Center
PC- In place of in person meeting, had phone call with group to discuss details.
Notes from the month:
Working on strategy for ArtECO since multi month event.
C.4-1
Visitor Services Contact Report
February 2013
Highlights from February in the Visitor Center:
• Moving to the new location 895 Monterey Street- only closed for one day and even
assisted tourists from new and old location during day of move
• Distribution of Maps & International Film Festival Brochures to all City Hotels
SLO events promoted through Visitor Center:
Cal Poly Arts an Evening with Garrison Kellor
SLO Botanical Gardens Saturday in the Garden
SLO Little Theater Gidions Knot
Cal Poly presents Menopause the Musical
Cuesta College Book of the Year Program
Cal Poly presents African Children’s Choir
Friends of Prado Culinary Carnival
SLO Symphony Ball
Central Coast Railroad Festival
Cal Poly presents Paco Pena Flamenco Vivo
Kelrik presents Tarzan the Stage Musical
Cal Poly presents Russian National Orchestra
Cal Poly presents ERTH Dinosaur Petting Zoo
Cal Poly 2nd Annual Diversity Colloquium
Cal Poly Dance Sport Ballroom Dance
Cuesta College Keyboard Extravaganza
SLO Jazz and The Noor Foundation Masquerade
Arts Obispo presents Arti Gras
Arts Obispo Poetry Out Loud Competition
SLO Folks Concert Blame Sally
Cal Poly Dance presents Orchesis
Cal Poly presents Avner the Eccentric
Opera SLO at Madonna Inn
SLO Little Theater presents Watergate
Monthly Visitor Center Interactions:
February 2013 January 2013 February 2012
Visitors in center: 3,863 4,713 4,370
Phone calls: 435 623 631
Emails: 95 124 138
Calendar of Events:
Events entered into calendar this month: 87
Events in the February calendar: 41
Promotional Product Sales:
Visitor Guides: 28
City Maps: 39
Promotional Product Giveaways:
25 Visitors Guide & 15 Downtown Maps Recruiter for Army National Guard. 50 Visitors Guide
& a DVD of SLO Sites to The Place 2Go International Tourism Fair based in Washington DC.
&
TOT Comparision
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Change +/-Actual Change +/-ADR
July 565,386$ 565,637$ 508,195$ 541,806$ 591,184$ 636,778$ 7.7%83.4 2.1 127.70$
August 573,057$ 609,452$ 511,564$ 542,194$ 574,395$ 623,655$ 8.5%81.5 1.9 127.75$
September 465,179$ 416,859$ 400,023$ 437,543$ 490,524$ 508,583$ 3.7%73 -2.6 119.34$
October 418,474$ 416,905$ 414,870$ 442,586$ 437,805$ 469,977$ 7.4%69.3 0.7 116.19$
November 375,287$ 354,737$ 280,913$ 330,924$ 347,437$ 359,163$ 3.4%57.7 -2.7 $107.34
December 312,510$ 274,871$ 246,684$ 274,417$ 314,784$ 319,451$ 1.5%50.9 -6 $100.40
January 287,474$ 258,316$ 230,279$ 256,351$ 276,165$ 302,153$ 9.4%52.2 2.7 97.96$
February 342,220$ 292,343$ 273,373$ 302,246$ 323,359$
March 386,458$ 289,506$ 326,099$ 333,783$ 392,266$
April 388,911$ 391,891$ 423,158$ 451,133$ 475,913$
May 435,516$ 393,431$ 372,997$ 433,874$ 447,116$
June 513,631$ 456,098$ 490,326$ 512,543$ 578,234$
Total/Average 5,064,103$ 4,720,046$ 4,478,481$ 4,859,400$ 5,249,181$ 3,219,761$
* figures from Smith Travel Research report
Occupancy
C.7-1
B.3-1
B.3-2
San Luis Obispo County
Visitors & Conference Bureau
Out of Market Survey
City of San Luis Obispo Partner Report
Final Report
B.5-1
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
2 | P a g e
Project Overview 4
Executive Summary 5
Part 1: Visitor Behavior 13
A. Overnight Travel 13
· Last Overnight Trip 13
· Visited San Luis Obispo County Overnight 14
· Number of Overnight Visits to San Luis Obispo County 15
B. Last Overnight Visit to San Luis Obispo County 16
· Area Visited 16
· Season Visited 17
· Primary Reason for Last Overnight Visit 20
· Activities Participated in During Last Overnight Visit 22
C. Reasons for Not Visiting 24
Part 2: Future Travel and Recommendations 26
A. Likelihood of Future Visits by Destination Type 26
B. Future Travel to San Luis Obispo County 27
· Importance of Activities/Events Versus Location 27
· Attributes that Influence Future Visit to San Luis Obispo County 29
C. Net Promoter Score 31
Part 3: Awareness and Perceptions of San Luis Obispo County 33
A. San Luis Obispo County Area Awareness 33
· Ability to Identify San Luis Obispo County Location 33
· Awareness of San Luis Obispo County Areas 35
B. Perceptions of San Luis Obispo County 36
· Description of San Luis Obispo County Destination to Others 36
· Agreement Ratings: Statements about San Luis Obispo County 39
· Attributes that Set San Luis Obispo Apart 40
· Attribute Comparison 43
· Accessibility of San Luis Obispo County 45
Part 4: Branding 47
A. Advertising Recall 47
· California Beach Destinations Advertising Recall 47
· San Luis Obispo County Destinations Advertising Recall 49
· “Savor the Central Coast Event” Advertising Recall 53
%
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
3 | P a g e
B. Taglines 54
Part 5: Respondent Profile 56
Part 6: Factors Driving Visit to City of San Luis Obispo 57
Appendix: Survey Questionnaire 59
List of Figures & Tables
Figure 1: Last Overnight Visit (in %) 13
Figure 2: Overnight visit in San Luis Obispo in the past two years 14
Figure 3: Number of Visits to San Luis Obispo County in the past two years 15
Figure 4: Season Last Visited San Luis Obispo County 19
Figure 5: Primary Reason for Last Visit to San Luis Obispo County 21
Figure 6: Primary Reason for not Visiting San Luis Obispo County 25
Figure 7: Destination Most Likely to visit in the Next Two Years 27
Figure 8: Importance of Events/Activities versus a specific destination
in deciding to visit San Luis Obispo County 28
Figure 9: Influence of Attributes on Decision to visit San Luis Obispo
County in the Future 30
Figure 10: Net Promoter Score by Destination 31
Figure 11: Likelihood of Recommending Visiting San Luis Obispo County 32
Figure 12: Awareness Map 33
Figure 13: Correct identification of San Luis Obispo County on Map 34
Figure 14: Non-Visitor Awareness of San Luis Obispo County Areas 36
Figure 15: How Visitors Described Their San Luis Obispo County
Destination to Friends 38
Figure 16: San Luis Obispo County Statements Agreement Ratings 41
Figure 17: Attributes that Set San Luis Obispo County Apart from
Other Destinations by Market 42
Figure 18: San Luis Obispo County Comparison Ratings 43
Figure 19: San Luis Obispo County Comparison Ratings by Market 44
Figure 20: Considered San Luis Obispo County Somewhat or Much More
Accessible than Other Destinations 46
Figure 21: Advertising Recall for California Beach Destinations 47
Figure 22: Advertising Recall for Beach Destinations by Market 49
Figure 23: Advertising Recall for San Luis Obispo County Destinations 50
Figure 24: Advertising Recall for San Luis Obispo County Destinations by Market 52
Figure 25: Advertising Recall for Sunset Savor the Central Coast 53
Figure 26: Tagline that Best Describes San Luis Obispo County 54
Figure 27:Respondent Demographics 56
Table 1: Area stayed during last Overnight Visit to San Luis Obispo County 17
Table 2: Activities Participated in During Last Overnight Visit to San Luis
Obispo County 23
Table 3: Attributes that Set San Luis Obispo County Apart from
Other Destinations 40
B.5-3
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
4 | P a g e
Project Overview
In an effort to determine behavior of visitors to San Luis Obispo County
as well as their perceptions of San Luis Obispo County, the San Luis
Obispo County Visitors & Conference Bureau (SLOCVCB) contracted with
the Strategic Marketing Group (SMG) to conduct the 2012 San Luis
Obispo County Visitor Survey.
Project Objectives:
· To understand the current awareness, perception and value of
the San Luis Obispo County brand to determine the potential
value for alternative branding options/taglines among its target
geographic markets.
· To establish baseline levels of visitation and general awareness
to San Luis Obispo County and its competitive set among its
target geographic markets.
· To determine consumer understanding and potential
confusion of San Luis Obispo County and its intra-region areas.
· Develop recommendations that work to improve the
effectiveness of the organization’s marketing programs and
collaboration among intra-regional areas.
Methodology:
SMG launched the survey in November 2012 using a panel survey and
targeted completed surveys from 800 California respondents, including:
· 300 respondents from Los Angeles/Orange County
· 200 from the Central Valley, and
· 300 from the greater Bay Area
Once the surveys were completed they were tabulated, analyzed and
this final report developed.
%
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
5 | P a g e
Executive Summary
Part 1: Visitor Behavior
· Nearly all respondents (98%) had traveled overnight in the past
year and most (88%) had traveled overnight within the past six
months. Additionally, only 2% of respondents indicated that
they were unlikely to take any overnight trips in the next two
years.
· Study Insight: The high rate of overnight travel among
respondents allows responses to be viewed without having to
account for unwillingness to travel among a subset of the
sample.
· Overall, about a third of respondents indicated that they had
visited San Luis Obispo County for an overnight trip within the
past two years; those who had reported an average of 2.3 visits
within that time period.
· Respondents from the Central Valley and rural locations were
much more likely to have traveled to San Luis Obispo County
and reported a higher number of trips than their counterparts.
Likelihood of traveling to San Luis Obispo County also increased
with income, though higher visitor incomes did not translate to
more frequent trips. Likewise, respondents without children
were a little less likely to travel to San Luis Obispo, but those
who did took more frequent trips there than those with
children.
· Study Insight: Regional awareness impacts visitation. Central
Valley respondents had higher awareness of San Luis Obispo
County, and consequently, were more likely to take a trip and
had a higher number of trips. Conversely, Los Angeles/Orange
County non-visitors were much more likely to say they had
never traveled to San Luis Obispo because they had never
thought about it.
· Study Insight: Areas stayed varied notably by the respondent’s
region and age. Marketing efforts should take into account
preferences among these groups, as well as any gaps in
awareness of some San Luis Obispo areas and their offerings.
· The area within San Luis Obispo County where visitors stayed on
their last trip varied significantly by respondent region. Those
from the San Francisco Bay Area were significantly more likely
to visit San Luis Obispo than respondents from other areas,
%
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
6 | P a g e
while Central Valley respondents were much more likely to visit
Pismo Beach and Morro Bay.
· Area stayed also varied notably by age. Visits to Pismo Beach
decreased with age, while middle-aged respondents were much
more likely to visit San Luis Obispo than older or younger
respondents.
· Overall, spring and summer were the most popular seasons to
visit San Luis Obispo County, and winter was the least popular.
When looking at visitors by region, respondents were more
likely to visit San Luis Obispo during the times of the year when
their home locations are warmest, with Los Angeles/Orange
County and Central Valley respondents visiting more often
during the summer and those from the San Francisco Bay Area
visiting more often in fall.
· Younger respondents (40 and under) traveled more often
during summer, as did respondents with children at home,
while older respondents (over 60) traveled more often in spring.
· Visitor respondents indicated the primary reason for their last
overnight visit to San Luis Obispo County. Most indicated that
they visited for pleasure or a vacation.
· Respondents from the Central Valley, those from urban areas
and younger respondents were most likely to report attending
for pleasure or a vacation. Interestingly, men were much more
likely to indicate that they visited for pleasure or vacation than
women
· When asked about activities participated in, respondents most
often selected sightseeing, shopping, fine dining, wine tasting,
visiting Hearst Castle and hiking.
· Respondents from Central Valley were much more likely to
report shopping than those from other areas, and much less
likely to report wine tasting or visiting Hearst Castle. Los
Angeles/Orange County respondents were significantly more
likely to report attending a special event. Respondents under 40
were the most likely to select shopping (52%) and visiting Hearst
Castle (26%).
· Visitors with children at home were much less likely to select
fine dining and wine tasting.
· Study Insight: Visitors with children were not only less likely to
participate in wine tasting during their visit to San Luis Obispo
County, they also placed less value on wine growing/tasting
and did not like the “Wine Coast County” tagline as much as
those without children.
%
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
7 | P a g e
· Among respondents who had not visited San Luis Obispo County
in the past two years, the most-frequently cited reason for not
visiting was that they had never thought about it, followed by
selecting another destination instead.
· Respondents from Los Angeles/Orange County were more likely
to state that they had never thought about visiting San Luis
Obispo County, as were younger respondents, those with lower
incomes and those with children at home.
Part 2: Future Travel and Recommendations
· When asked about the areas they were likely to visit in the next
two years, “beach area” was the most-frequently-selected
response, followed by a major city/urban area, wine country, a
ski area/mountain destination or a cruise.
· San Francisco Bay Area respondents were much more likely to
indicate that they would visit a major city or urban area, while
those from the Central Valley were more likely to travel to a
beach area, and much less likely to plan on visiting a wine
country destination.
· Study Insight: Central Valley respondents differ from those
from Los Angeles/Orange County or San Francisco – they value
destinations with beaches more, and those with wine country
less.
· Respondents who had visited San Luis Obispo County for an
overnight stay in the past two years were much more likely to
say they would visit a beach location and wine country.
· Older respondents were significantly less likely to select a beach
destination than younger and middle-aged respondents.
· Respondents considered whether, when deciding to visit San
Luis Obispo County, they would give more importance to
available activities and events throughout the county or a
specific location in the county. Overall, the sample leaned to
preferring activities 55% and events, and 45% preferring a
specific location.
· Respondents from Los Angeles/Orange County were the most
strongly in favor of events/activities over a specific location.
· Non visitors strongly favored events/activities over a specific
location, while visitors were evenly split.
· Study Insight: Visiting San Luis Obispo increases preference for
activities/events over a specific location over.
%
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
8 | P a g e
· Preference for events/activities decreased with age and income.
· The survey provided respondents with a list of attributes, and
asked them to select how influential each is to their decision to
take a future overnight trip to San Luis Obispo County.
· Overall, respondents gave “activities that I like to participate
in” the highest ratings, followed by “to visit a specific town,”
“good lodging prices,” “just to get away,” and “visiting Hearst
Castle.”
· Study Insight: Even though younger visitors were the most
likely to state that they visited Hearst Castle during their most
recent trip to San Luis Obispo County, younger respondents in
the overall sample placed considered visiting it to be a less
influential attribute than older age groups.
· Respondents indicated the likelihood that they would
recommend several California beach destinations to a friend,
family member or colleague on a scale of 1 (not at all likely) to
10 (very likely).
· Results were calculated using a net promoter score (NPS)
between 100 (if all respondents are promoters) to -100 (if all
respondents are detractors).
· Overall, Monterey County and Santa Monica County had very
high net promoter scores, followed by Santa Barbara County
and San Luis Obispo County.
· Study Insight: San Luis Obispo County’s positive NPS was
driven by respondents who had visited the County in the past
two years; visitors averaged an NPS of 48%, compared with -
14% among non-visitors.
· San Luis Obispo County received a positive NPS among all
demographics, with the exception of San Francisco Bay Area
respondents, who averaged an NPS of 0%.
· Rural respondents and those between 40 and 60 years old had
notably higher NPS scores than their counterparts.
Part 3: Awareness and Perceptions of San Luis Obispo County
· In order to gauge awareness of San Luis Obispo County, the
survey asked all respondents to identify it on a map. Non-visitor
respondents were also asked to indicate the areas within San
Luis Obispo County with which they are familiar.
· Overall, 88% of respondents correctly identified San Luis Obispo
County on the map. As expected, this percentage was highest
among those who had visited San Luis Obispo County in the past
two years. Those from Los Angeles/Orange County were much
%
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
9 | P a g e
less likely to correctly identify San Luis Obispo County than
respondents from other areas, and rural respondents identified
San Luis Obispo County more often than their suburban or
urban counterparts. Correct identification increased with age
and income.
· Study Insight: Respondents over 60 were more aware of San
Luis Obispo County’s location, more familiar with areas in San
Luis Obispo County, and were more likely to feel that it is
easily accessible than younger respondents.
· Respondents who had not visited San Luis Obispo County within
the past two years were provided with a list of areas within the
County and asked to identify those with which they were
familiar. San Simeon (Hearst Castle) was the most frequently-
selected area followed by Pismo Beach, San Luis Obispo and
Morro Bay. Familiarity with all areas increased with age and
generally increased with income.
· Study Insight: Only 17% of non-visitor respondents stated that
they were not familiar with any of the San Luis Obispo
locations, yet about twice as many stated that they had never
thought about taking a trip San Luis Obispo County.
· The survey asked respondents several questions to gauge their
perceptions of San Luis Obispo County, including asking visitors
how they described their destination to others and how strongly
they agree with several statements and attributes describing
San Luis Obispo County.
· Respondents overwhelmingly stated that they had told friends
they were visiting to a specific town. This percentage was even
higher among those from the Central Valley and suburban and
rural respondents.
· The survey provided both visitor and non-visitor respondents
with a list of positive statements about San Luis Obispo County,
and asked them to rate their agreement with each.
· Visitor respondents agreed strongly with most statements. They
most strongly agreed that San Luis Obispo County is “a place I
like to visit.” “a place that has scenic wonders,” “accessible via
Highway 1,” “a place that offers outdoor recreation,” “a place
that has the activities I like to do,” and “a place that has friendly
people.” They were much less likely to agree that San Luis
Obispo County is pet-friendly – instead, most stated that they
did not know whether it is pet-friendly. Visitor respondents
across demographics strongly agreed with each of these
statements; fluctuations within demographics.
%
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
10 | P a g e
· Non-visitor respondents agreed with the statements much less
frequently than visitors; however, when those who did not
agree with a statement generally selected “I don’t know” rather
than stating that they actually disagreed with the statement.
· The survey provided respondents with a list of attributes, and
asked them to select all that they felt helped set San Luis Obispo
County apart from other rural destinations.
· Both visitor and non-visitor respondents selected Hearst Castle
most often; a notable percentage also selected its Central Coast
location. Visitor respondents were much more likely to select
beaches, wine growing/tasting,
· By region, visitor respondents from the San Francisco Bay Area
were much more likely to select Hearst Castle, while those from
the Central Valley were more likely to select beaches and Los
Angeles/Orange County respondents were most likely to cite
wine growing/tasting.
· Older visitors were significantly more likely to select Hearst
Castle.
· Visitors with no children at home were more likely to select
wine growing/tasting.
· The survey provided respondents who had visited San Luis
Obispo County within the past two years with a list of
attributes, and asked them to rate each attribute on how they
felt San Luis Obispo County compared with other destinations
they had visited.
· Overall, 80% of visitors agreed that San Luis Obispo’s scenic
beauty was better or much better than other destinations. Most
also agreed that San Luis Obispo County was better or much
better than other destinations in ambiance/local feel, natural
wonders, friendly people. availability of recreation, ease of
access and things to do.
· Fewer visitors agreed that San Luis Obispo County was better
than other destinations for pet-friendliness special events or
price/value
· Central Valley and rural respondents tended to give the highest
ratings to all attributes.
· In general, older respondents were somewhat less likely to
consider San Luis Obispo County better or much better than
other destinations in the top-rated attributes, but they were
more likely to feel that San Luis Obispo was superior in ease of
access, dining and lodging quality and options, and price/value.
· Respondents indicated how accessible they felt San Luis Obispo
County is compared with other destinations that they have
visited.
· Most respondents considered it somewhat more or somewhat
less accessible than other destinations.
%
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
11 | P a g e
· Those who had visited San Luis Obispo were significantly more
likely to consider it much more or somewhat more accessible
than those who had not, as were older respondents.
Part 4: Branding
· The survey asked respondents to indicate if they recalled seeing
or hearing advertising for several California beach destinations,
for specific San Luis Obispo destinations, or for Sunset
Magazine’s “Savor the Central Coast” event.
· Over two-thirds of respondents recalled advertising for at least
one California beach destination, Santa Cruz County, Monterey
County, and Santa Barbara County as the most-frequently cited.
San Luis Obispo County ranked last in advertising recall for all
destinations, with 15%.
· Advertising recall varied significantly by respondent region. San
Francisco Bay Area respondents recalled advertising for Santa
Cruz County and Monterey County much more often, while Los
Angeles/Orange County respondents were much more likely to
recall advertising from Santa Barbara County, Newport Beach,
Santa Monica, and Laguna Beach. Awareness of advertising for
San Luis Obispo County remained low among respondents from
all regions; however, those from the Central Valley had slightly
higher advertising recall.
· Respondents also indicated if they recalled seeing or hearing
any advertising for several San Luis Obispo County destinations
within the past year.
· Study Insight: Advertising awareness was much higher for
destinations within San Luis Obispo County than for the
County itself. Overall, 60% recalled advertising for at least one
destination, although only 15% had previously stated recalling
advertising for San Luis Obispo County.
· Advertising was most frequently recalled for San Simeon/Hearst
Castle followed by Pismo Beach.
· Central Valley, rural respondents and older respondents tended
to have higher advertising recall, and visitor respondents had
significantly higher recall.
· Respondents also indicated their recall of advertising for Sunset
Magazine’s “Savor the Central Coast” event.
· Overall, only 16% of respondents recalled advertising for the
event. This percentage varied little by respondent region or
demographic.
%
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
12 | P a g e
· The survey provided respondents with several taglines
describing San Luis Obispo County, and asked them to rate each
one on how well it describes San Luis Obispo County and how
much it would motivate them to seek information about visiting
San Luis Obispo County, and to select the single tagline they
liked best.
· Overall, respondents felt that “Wine Coast County” best
described San Luis Obispo County and would most motivate
them to seek out more information about it. They also gave
very high ratings to “Your Wine and Waves Destination.”
· When asked to select the tagline they like best, respondents
overwhelmingly preferred “Your Wine and Waves Destination”
to all other taglines.
· Respondent preferences varied somewhat by region; although
respondents from all regions selected “Your Wine and Waves
Destination” as their favorite tagline, those from the San
Francisco Bay Area were slightly less enthusiastic about it, but
had a stronger preference for “Discover,” than respondents
from other areas.
· Interestingly, tagline preference varied little between visitor and
non-visitor respondents, at least among the most popular
taglines.
· Preference for “Your Wine and Waves Destination” decreased
slightly with age, but varied little by income.
· Respondents without children at home strongly preferred
“Wine Coast County” compared with those with children at
home.
%
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
13 | P a g e
Part 1: Visitor Behavior
A. Overnight Travel
Last Overnight Trip
· The survey asked respondents the last time they had done any
traveling that included an overnight stay away from home.
· The overwhelming majority of respondents (98%) had traveled
overnight within the past year, including 88% who had traveled
overnight within the past 6 months. No respondents indicated
that it had been more than 24 months since they last traveled
overnight.
· This percentage varied little by respondent types. Some
respondents—including those from Los Angeles/Orange County,
suburban respondents and those between 41 and 60 years
old—were somewhat less likely to have traveled within the past
6 months, but accordingly, were more likely to have traveled
within the past 6 to12 months.
Figure 1
Last Overnight Visit (in %)
(Base = All Respondents)
88%92%90%89%86%90%86%
94%90%
84%
90%89%88%87%88%91%86%89%
10%
8%9%9%13%9%12%
6%
8%15%7%9%11%12%9%
8%
13%10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Within the past 6 months 6 - 12 months ago 13 - 24 months ago
%
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
14 | P a g e
Visited San Luis Obispo County Overnight
· Respondents indicated if they had traveled to San Luis Obispo
County for an overnight visit within the past two years.
· Overall, a little over a third (36%) of respondents indicated that
they had visited San Luis Obispo County.
· Overnight travel to San Luis Obispo County was markedly higher
among visitors from the Central Valley (43%), likely due to
proximity, as well as among those from rural locations (50%).
· Likelihood of overnight travel to San Luis Obispo County
increased notably with income (44% among those with annual
incomes of $100,000 or more, compared with only 32% among
those making less than $60,000 a year), and increased slightly
with age and among those with children.
Figure 2
Overnight visit in San Luis Obispo County in the past two years (in %)
(Base = All Respondents)
36%
100%
34%
43%
35%
34%
36%
50%
34%
38%
37%
38%
35%
32%
35%
44%
40%
36%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Total
City of SLO
SF Bay Area
Central Valley
LA/Orange County
Urban
Suburban
Rural
40 Years & Younger
41-60 Years
60 Years +
Male
Female
<$60K/Year
$60K-$99K
$100K+
Children at Home
No Children at Home
B.5-14
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
15 | P a g e
Number of Overnight Visits to San Luis Obispo County
· Respondents who had traveled to San Luis Obispo County for an
overnight visit in the past two years indicated the number of
times they had visited within that time period.
· Overall, visitors averaged 2.3 visits.
· As with likelihood of visiting San Luis Obispo County, the
number of visits was notably higher among respondents who
live in the Central Valley (2.95), and increased with age (2.51
among respondents over 60, compared with 1.92 visits among
those under 40).
· Number of visits did not necessarily increase with income.
Although visitors with the highest annual incomes ($100,000 or
more) visited most often (2.69 visits on average), those with
middle incomes ($60,000 to $99,000) visited least often (2 visits
on average).
· Although respondents without children were less likely to have
visited San Luis Obispo County in the past two years, those who
did visited more often than those with children).
Figure 3
Number of Overnight Visits to San Luis Obispo County in the past two years
(average number)
(Base = San Luis Obispo County Overnight Visitors)
2.31
1.78
1.92
2.95
2.16
2.08
2.41
2.47
1.91
2.32
2.51
2.45
2.20
2.22
2.00
2.69
2.14
2.35
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50
Total
City of SLO
SF Bay Area
Central Valley
LA/Orange County
Urban
Suburban
Rural
40 Years & Younger
41-60 Years
60 Years +
Male
Female
<$60K/Year
$60K-$99K
$100K+
Children at Home
No Children at Home
B.5-15
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
16 | P a g e
B. Last Overnight Visit to San Luis Obispo County
· The survey asked respondents who had visited San Luis Obispo
County several questions about their last visit, including the
area they stayed, the season they stayed, the primary reason
for their visit, and the activities they participated in during their
visit.
· Results from these questions provide insight into understanding
current visitor behavior and preferences for recreating in San
Luis Obispo County.
Area Visited
· Visitor respondents selected the area that they stayed in
during their most recent overnight visit to San Luis Obispo
County from a list of locations.
· San Luis Obispo was the most frequently-selected area (27%),
followed by Pismo Beach (23%), Morro Bay (17%), Paso Robles
(12%) and Wine Coast Count unincorporated areas (9%).
· Less frequently-select areas included Arroyo Grande (3%),
Atascadero (2%) and Grover Beach (1%).
· Area visited varied significantly by respondent region. Those
from the San Francisco Bay Area were significantly more likely
to visit San Luis Obispo (37%) than respondents from Los
Angeles/Orange County (26%) or the Central Valley (16%).
· Correspondingly, those from the Central Valley were much
more likely to visit Pismo Beach (34%) and Morro Bay (26%)
than respondents from the San Francisco Bay Area (19% and
9%, respectively) or Los Angeles/Orange County (17% each). See
Figure 4.
B.5-16
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
17 | P a g e
Table 1
Area Stayed During Last Overnight Visit to San Luis Obispo County (in %)
(Base = San Luis Obispo County Overnight Visitors)
All City of SF Central Los Angeles
SLO Bay Area Valley Orange County
San Luis Obispo 27% 100% 37% 16%26%
Pismo Beach 23% 0% 19% 34%17%
Morro Bay 17% 0% 9% 26%17%
Paso Robles 12% 0% 13% 8%13%
Unincorporated
Area 9%0% 8% 11%8%
Arroyo Grande 3% 0% 5% 2%3%
Atascadero 2% 0% 1% 2%2%
Grover Beach 1% 0% 0% 2%1%
Other 14% 0% 14% 8%18%
· Correspondingly, respondents from urban locations were
more likely to have visited San Luis Obispo, while those in
rural locations were more likely to have visited Pismo
Beach or Morro Bay.
· Area stayed also varied by other respondent characteristics as
well, most notably by age. Visits to Pismo Beach decreased with
age; 33% of respondents aged 40 and younger reported visiting
it, compared with 24% among those between 41 and 60 and
only 16% among those over 60. Likewise, middle-aged
respondents were much more likely to visit San Luis Obispo
(34%) than older (24%) or younger (20%) respondents.
· Area stayed varied little by income or family status, with a
couple of exceptions. Those with the lowest incomes (under
$60,000) were more likely to stay in Paso Robles (16%,
compared with 9% among those with middle-incomes and 10%
among those with the highest incomes), and those without
children were much more likely to stay in Morro Bay (19%,
compared with 7% among those with children).
Season Visited
· The survey asked San Luis Obispo County visitors to indicate the
season during which they last visited overnight.
· Overall, spring and summer were the most popular seasons to
visit, with 33% of respondents selecting each. These were
followed by fall, with 25% of respondents. Winter was the least
popular season to visit, accounting for only 9% of visitor
respondents.
B.5-17
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
18 | P a g e
· Respondents tended to visit San Luis Obispo during the times of
the year when their home locations are warmest. Los
Angeles/Orange County and Central Valley respondents were
more likely to visit San Luis Obispo County during the summer
(37% and 34%, respectively), while those from the San Francisco
Bay Area were more likely to visit in the fall (35%).
· Suburban respondents traveled most often in spring, while rural
respondents traveled most often in fall (36% each), and those
from urban areas traveled most often in summer (35%).
· Younger respondents (40 and under) traveled more often
during summer, as did respondents with children at home
(39%). Older respondents (over 60) traveled more often in
spring (39%), while middle-age respondents (between 41 and
60) were about as likely to travel in spring, summer or fall.
· Season traveled varied little by respondent income.
B.5-18
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
19 | P a g e
Figure 4
Season Last Visited San Luis Obispo County (in %)
(Base = San Luis Obispo County Overnight Visitors)
9%
8%
6%
9%
11%
12%
8%
6%
12%
11%
5%
10%
8%
12%
8%
7%
7%
9%
33%
35%
31%
35%
32%
29%
36%
25%
30%
27%
39%
32%
33%
34%
32%
32%
37%
32%
33%
34%
28%
34%
37%
35%
32%
33%
41%
30%
31%
29%
36%
31%
34%
34%
39%
32%
25%
23%
35%
21%
20%
24%
24%
36%
17%
31%
25%
30%
22%
23%
26%
27%
18%
27%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Total
City of SLO
SF Bay Area
Central Valley
LA/Orange County
Urban
Suburban
Rural
40 Years & Younger
41-60 Years
60 Years +
Male
Female
<$60K/Year
$60K-$99K/Year
$100K+
Children at Home
No Children at Home
Fall Summer Spring Winter
B.5-19
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
20 | P a g e
Primary Reason for Last Overnight Visit
· Visitor respondents indicated if their last overnight visit to San
Luis Obispo County had been for pleasure or a vacation;
business or a meeting, convention or seminar; to visit a friend
or relative; to attend a special event; to attend a wedding; or as
part of an incentive group.
· Overall, two-thirds of visitor respondents (66%) reported
visiting San Luis Obispo for pleasure or a vacation, followed by
16% who visited a friend or relative, 5% who attended for
business, and only 3% each who attended a wedding or a
special event. No participants reported attending as part of an
incentive group.
· Respondents from the Central Valley were most likely to report
attending for pleasure or a vacation (71%, compared with 64%
among those from the San Francisco Bay area and 65% among
those from Los Angeles/Orange County.
· Respondents from urban locations were also more likely to visit
for pleasure or a vacation (71%, compared with 64% among
suburban and 67% among rural respondents).
· The youngest respondents (40 and under) were most likely to
visit for pleasure or vacation 71% compared with 65% among
other age groups), and likelihood of visiting for
pleasure/vacation increased slightly with income (69% among
those with the highest incomes, compared with 64% among
those with the lowest).
· Interestingly, men were much more likely to indicate that they
visited for pleasure or vacation (72%) than women (62%).
Conversely, women were somewhat more likely than men to
say they were visiting a friend or relative (19% compared with
13%).
B.5-20
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
21 | P a g e
Figure 5
Primary Reason for Last Visit to San Luis Obispo County (in %)
(Base = San Luis Obispo County Overnight Visitors)
66%
66%
64%
71%
65%
71%
64%
67%
71%
65%
65%
72%
62%
64%
66%
69%
67%
66%
16%
16%
17%
13%
18%
15%
17%
17%
15%
15%
18%
13%
19%
21%
14%
12%
12%
17%
5%
6%
5%
6%
4%
4%
6%
3%
3%
7%
4%
6%
4%
1%
7%
7%
7%
4%
3%
1%
4%
5%
2%
4%
0%
5%
3%
3%
2%
4%
3%
3%
3%
0%
4%
3%
3%
4%
1%
4%
1%
4%
6%
3%
2%
4%
2%
4%
5%
2%
2%
2%
3%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Total
City of SLO
SF Bay Area
Central Valley
LA/Orange County
Urban
Suburban
Rural
40 Years & Younger
41-60 Years
60 Years +
Male
Female
<$60K/Year
$60K-$99K/Year
$100K+
Children at Home
No Children at Home
Wedding Special event
Business/convention/seminar Visit friend/relative
Pleasure/vacation
B.5-21
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
22 | P a g e
Activities Participated in During Last Overnight Visit
· The survey provided visitor respondents with a list of 19
activities and asked them to select the activities they had
participated in during their last overnight visit to San Luis
Obispo County.
· The most frequently-selected activities included sightseeing
(57%), shopping (47%), fine dining (44%), wine tasting (31%),
visiting Hearst Castle (23%), and hiking (21%).
· Respondents from all locations followed similar patterns of
participation for most activities. However, those from the
Central Valley were much more likely to report shopping (54%)
than those from either the San Francisco Bay Area (44%) or Los
Angeles/Orange County (45%), and much less likely to report
wine tasting (24%) or visiting Hearst Castle (19%). Likewise,
those from Los Angeles/Orange County were significantly more
likely to report attending a special event (24%) than those from
the San Francisco Bay Area (8%). See Figure 8.
· The youngest respondents were the most likely to select
shopping (52%), visiting Hearst Castle (26%), hiking (32%) and
surfing (24%), least likely to report fine dining (39%).
· Visitors with lower incomes were most likely to sightsee (62%
among those earning less than $60,000 and 58% among those
earning $60,000 to $99,000, compared with only 51% among
those earning $100,000 or more).
· Respondents with children at home were much less likely to
select fine dining (32%, compared with 47% among those
without children) and wine tasting (12%, compared with 36%
among those without children). They were more likely to report
surfing (21% compared with 9% among those without children).
B.5-22
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
23 | P a g e
Table 2
Activities Participated in During Last Overnight Visit to San Luis Obispo County (in %)
(Base = San Luis Obispo County Overnight Visitors)
All City of SF Central Los Angeles/
SLO Bay Area Valley Orange County
Sightseeing 57% 49% 57% 58% 57%
Shopping 47% 44% 44% 54% 45%
Fine dining 44% 42% 49% 42% 42%
Wine tasting 31% 25% 36% 24% 33%
Hearst Castle 23% 28% 26% 19% 25%
Hiking 21% 22% 20% 24% 21%
Special event 15% 10% 8% 15% 21%
Surfing (Beach Play) 12% 14% 8% 15% 12%
Cal Poly 8% 16% 10% 9%5%
Golf 5% 5% 4% 7%5%
Fishing 3% 3% 1% 6%4%
Off road motorcycle/ATV 3% 1% 3% 5%3%
Road cycling 3% 3% 4% 6%1%
Performing Arts Center 2% 4% 3% 2%2%
Kayaking 2% 1% 2% 6% -
Horseback riding 2% 1% 1% 4%1%
Motorcycle touring (on pavement) 1% - 1% - 3%
Mountain biking 1% 1% 2% 2% -
Jet skiing / water skiing 0% - - - 1%
Other 14% 14% 15% 13% 14%
B.5-23
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
24 | P a g e
C. Reasons for Not Visiting
· The survey asked those who had not visited San Luis Obispo
County within the past two years to select the primary reason
for not visiting.
· Over one-third (36%) of respondents stated that they had not
visited San Luis Obispo because they had never thought about
visiting, followed by 21% of respondents who stated that they
had selected another destination. Only a small percentage of
respondents selected any other single reason, with 5%
implicating the effects of the recession/reducing the number of
trips taken, 5% stating that San Luis Obispo County did not have
activities that appealed to them, 3% stating that it is too far, and
2% citing gas prices.
· Respondents from Los Angeles/Orange County were more likely
to state that they had never thought about visiting San Luis
Obispo County, with 40%, compared with 35% from the Central
Valley and 32% from the San Francisco Bay Area.
· Urban respondents followed a similar pattern, with 39% stating
they had never thought about it, compared with 35% among
suburban respondents and only 28% among rural respondents.
Likewise, rural respondents were significantly more likely to
state that they had gone to a different destination (33%,
compared with 22% among urban respondents and 18% among
suburban).
· Younger respondents, those with lower incomes and those with
children at home were all more likely to say that they had never
thought about visiting San Luis Obispo than their counterparts.
B.5-24
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
25 | P a g e
Figure 6
Primary Reason for Not Visiting San Luis Obispo County – Top Two Reasons (in %)
(Base = San Luis Obispo County Non-Visitors)
36%
32%
35%
40%
39%
35%
28%
49%
37%
26%
33%
37%
39%
35%
32%
31%
37%
21%
23%
21%
18%
22%
18%
33%
15%
19%
25%
18%
22%
23%
17%
21%
17%
21%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Total
SF Bay Area
Central Valley
LA/Orange County
Urban
Suburban
Rural
40 Years & Younger
41-60 Years
60 Years +
Male
Female
<$60K/Year
$60K-$99K/Year
$100K+
Children at Home
No Children at Home
Going to a Different Destination Never Thought about It
%
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
26 | P a g e
Part 2: Future Travel and Recommendations
A. Likelihood of Future Visits by Destination Type
· The survey asked respondents questions about their
consideration of several types of destinations for future travel,
including the types of destinations they felt they would travel to
in the next two years, and the attributes that are most
important in deciding to go to those types of destinations.
· The survey asked respondents to indicate the types of
destinations that they are most likely to visit for overnight trips
within the next two years. Respondents could select multiple
destination types.
· Overall, 60% indicated that they were likely to visit a beach
area, followed by 47% who felt they would visit a major
city/urban area, 38% who selected wine country, 26% who
selected a ski area/mountain destination and 23% who selected
a cruise. Only 2% of respondents reported that they were not
likely to take any overnight trips.
· Respondents from the San Francisco Bay Area were much more
likely to indicate that they would visit a major city or urban area
(55%, compared with 44% among those from Los
Angeles/Orange County and 42% among those from the Central
Valley). Those from the Central Valley were more likely to travel
to a beach area (65%, compared with 59% among those from
Los Angeles/Orange County and 57% among those from the San
Francisco Bay Area), and much less likely to plan on visiting a
wine country destination (32%, compared with 39% among
those from the San Francisco Bay Area and 41% among those
from Los Angeles/Orange County).
· Urban and suburban respondents varied little in their
destination preferences; however, rural respondents were more
likely to say they would visit a beach area (67%, compared with
59% among urban and suburban respondents) and significantly
less likely to visit an urban area or major city (29%, compared
with 51% among urban and 48% among suburban respondents).
· Respondents who had visited San Luis Obispo County for an
overnight stay in the past two years were much more likely to
say they would visit a beach location (68% compared with 55%
among non-visitors), wine country (45% compared with 34%)
and a ski area/mountain destination (31% compared with 23%).
· Older respondents were significantly less likely to select a beach
destination (48% compared with 67% among middle-aged
respondents and 69% among respondents under 40).
Respondents under 40 were also much more likely to state that
they would visit a major city/urban destination (58%, compared
with 44% among other age groups), wine country (48%,
B.5-26
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
27 | P a g e
compared with 32% among middle-aged respondents and 37%
among older respondents).
· Respondents with middle incomes ($60,000-$99,000) were
more likely to select beach, major city and wine country
destinations than those with higher and lower incomes, but
somewhat less likely to select ski/mountain area or a cruise,
particularly when compared with higher-income respondents.
Figure 7
Destinations Most Likely to Visit in the Next Two Years (in %)
(Base = All Respondents)
B. Future Travel to San Luis Obispo County
Importance of Activities/Events Versus Location
· The survey asked respondents to consider whether, when
deciding to visit San Luis Obispo County, they would give more
importance to available activities and events throughout the
county or a specific location in the county.
· Overall, 55% of respondents selected available activities and
events, compared with 45% who selected a specific location.
· Respondents from the San Francisco Bay Area were evenly split,
with 50% selecting each option. Respondents from Los
Angeles/Orange County were the most strongly in favor of
events/activities (59%) over a specific location (41%), followed
by those from the Central Valley (56% and 45%, respectively).
· Urban and rural respondents were closely split between both
options, with 51% selecting events/activities and 49% selecting
a specific destination; conversely 58% of suburban respondents
selected events/activities and only 42% selected specific a
destination.
60%
47%
38%
26%
23%
14%
2%
71%
57%
42%
29%
23%
13%
0%
57%55%
39%
25%22%
15%
1%
65%
42%
32%
27%
23%
12%
4%
59%
44%41%
27%
24%
14%
2%
0%
25%
50%
75%
Beach Area Major City/Urban
Area
Wine Country Ski Area/Mountain Cruise Other None
All SLO City SF Bay Area Central Valley LA/Orange County
B.5-27
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
28 | P a g e
· Respondents who had taken an overnight trip to San Luis
Obispo in the past two years were evenly split between the two
options, with 50% each, while those who had not strongly
favored events/activities (58%) over a specific location (42%).
· Preference for events/activities decreased with age, with 60%
of respondents aged 40 or younger and 57% between 41 and 60
selecting it, compared with only 49% among those who were 60
or older.
· Women strongly preferred events/activities (57%) to a specific
location (43%), whereas men were nearly split between the two
(51% and 49%, respectively).
· Preference for events/activities decreased with income, with
58% of those earning $60,000 or less selecting it, compared
with 53% among those earning between $60,000 and $99,000
and 52% among those earning $100,000 or more.
· Those with children at home selected events/activities
somewhat more often than those without (59% and 54%,
respectively).
Figure 8
Importance of Events/Activities versus a Specific Destination in Deciding to Visit
San Luis Obispo County (in %)
(Base = All Respondents)
55%
27%
50%
56%
59%
51%
58%
51%
50%
58%
60%
57%
49%
51%
57%
58%
53%
52%
59%
54%
45%
73%
50%
45%
41%
49%
42%
49%
50%
42%
40%
43%
51%
49%
43%
42%
47%
48%
41%
46%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Total
City of SLO
SF Bay Area
Central Valley
LA/Orange County
Urban
Suburban
Rural
Visited SLO
Non-Visitor
40 Years & Younger
41-60 Years
60 Years +
Male
Female
<$60K/Year
$60K-$99K/Year
$100K+
Children at Home
No Children at Home
Specific Destination Events/Actitivies
B.5-28
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
29 | P a g e
Attributes that Influence Future Visit to San Luis Obispo
County
· The survey provided respondents with a list of attributes, and
asked them to select how influential each is to their decision to
take a future overnight trip to San Luis Obispo County.
Respondents rated the degree of influence each had on their
decision on a scale from 1 (no value) to 5 (tremendous value).
· Overall, respondents considered “activities that I like to
participate in” to have the most value, giving it an average
rating of 4.19 out of 5. This was followed by “to visit a specific
town” (4.01), “good lodging prices” (3.99), “just to get away”
(3.95), and “visiting Hearst Castle” (3.94).
· In general, responses varied little by respondent region (see
Figure 12). “Wine tasting” was more influential (3.59) to
respondents from Los Angeles/Orange County, while “Visiting
Cal Poly San Luis Obispo” was less influential (2.42). Those from
the San Francisco Bay Area considered “touring Highway 1”
more influential than other respondents, and “visiting a special
event” and “just to get away” less influential.
· Urban respondents were much more likely to select “wine
tasting” (3.59) compared with rural (3.42) and suburban (3.35)
respondents, and “just to get away” much less influential (3.85,
compared with 4.0 among suburban respondents and 4.01
among rural respondents).
· All respondents valued “activities I like to participate in,” but
younger respondents gave it even higher ratings (4.34) than
middle aged (4.25) or older (4.05) respondents. Conversely,
they placed much less influence on “visiting Hearst Castle”
(3.63, compared with 4.06 among middle aged respondents and
4.01 among older respondents) and “touring Highway 1” (3.32,
compared with 3.9 among other age groups). Middle aged
respondents were much more likely to select “just to get away”
and “good lodging prices” (4.12 each) than either younger (3.97
and 4.04, respectively) or older (3.79 and 3.85, respectively)
respondents.
· Women placed more emphasis on “just to get away” (4.09) and
“good lodging prices” (4.12) than men (3.76 and 3.82,
respectively).
· Respondents with the highest incomes placed more emphasis
on “wine tasting” (3.59, compared with 3.42 among those with
middle incomes and 3.36 among those with the lowest
incomes), and “visit Cal Poly San Luis Obispo (2.70, compared
with 2.47 among those with the lowest incomes and 2.49
among those with middle incomes).
%
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
30 | P a g e
· Those with children at home considered “good lodging prices”
(4.21) and “visit Cal Poly San Luis Obispo” (2.82) and much more
influential than those without (3.95 and 2.48, respectively).
Figure 9
Influence of Attributes on Decision to Visit San Luis Obispo County in the Future (in %)
(Base = All Respondents)
4.2
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.4
2.5
4.3
4.3
4.1
4.1
3.8
4.1
3.9
3.7
3.7
3.0
4.2
3.9
3.9
3.8
4.0
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.4
2.6
4.2
4.1
4.0
4.1
3.9
3.7
3.8
3.5
3.3
2.6
2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Activities You Like to Participate in
To Visit a Specific Town
Good Lodging Prices
Just to Get Away
Visiting Hearst Castle
Touring Highway 1
Attending a Special Event
Visit Oceano Dunes
Wine Tasting
Visit Cal Poly San Luis Obispo
LA/Orange County Central Valley SF Bay Area City of SLO Total
%
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
31 | P a g e
C. Net Promoter Score
· Respondents indicated the likelihood that they would
recommend several California beach destinations to a friend,
family member or colleague on a scale of 1 (not at all likely) to
10 (very likely).
· Results were calculated using a net promoter score (NPS), which
indicates whether respondents are promoters or detractors of
each destination. The NPS is calculated on a scale from 100 (if
all respondents are promoters) to -100 (if all respondents are
detractors).
· Overall, Monterey County and Santa Monica County had very
high net promoter scores (30% and 22%, respectively), followed
by Santa Barbara County (12%) and San Luis Obispo County
(7%). Laguna Beach and Newport Beach each had negative net
promoter scores (-9% and -16%, respectively).
Figure 10
Net Promoter Score by Destination (in %)
(Base = All Respondents)
· San Luis Obispo County’s positive NPS was driven by
respondents who had visited the County in the past two years;
visitors averaged an NPS of 48%, compared with -14% among
non-visitors.
· This positive effect resulted in positive NPS across other
demographics, with the exception of San Francisco Bay Area
respondents, who averaged an NPS of 0%.
30%
22%
12%
7%
3%
-9%
-16%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Monterey
County
Santa Monica Santa Barbara
County
San Luis Obispo
County
Santa Cruz
County
Laguna Beach Newport Beach
%
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
32 | P a g e
· Rural respondents and those between 40 and 60 years old had
notably higher NPS scores than their counterparts. Rural
respondents averaged an NPS of 17%, compared with just 9%
and 7% among urban and suburban respondents, respectively.
Respondents between 40 and 60 averaged an NPS of 15%,
compared with 6% among younger respondents and 5% among
older respondents. See Figure 14.
Figure 11
Likelihood of Recommending Visiting San Luis Obispo County (average)
(Base = All Respondents)
9%
34%
0%
14%
13%
9%
7%
17%
48%
-14%
6%
15%
5%
6%
10%
10%
8%
7%
13%
8%
-20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Total
City of SLO
SF Bay Area
Central Valley
LA/Orange County
Urban
Suburban
Rural
Visited SLO
Non-Visitor
40 Years & Younger
41-60 Years
60 Years +
Male
Female
<$60K/Year
$60K-$99K/Year
$100K+
Children at Home
No Children at Home
B.5-32
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
33 | P a g e
Part 3: Awareness and Perceptions of
San Luis Obispo County
A. San Luis Obispo County Area Awareness
· In order to gauge awareness of San Luis Obispo County, the
survey asked all respondents to identify it on a map. Non-visitor
respondents were also asked to indicate the areas within San
Luis Obispo County with which they are familiar.
Ability to Identify San Luis Obispo County Location
· The survey provided respondents with a map and asked them to
identify where San Luis Obispo is located by selecting from five
different areas in California. See Figure 15.
Figure 12
Map Shown to Respondents to Test Awareness of San Luis Obispo County Location
· Overall, 88% of respondents correctly identified San Luis Obispo
County as area “C” on the map.
· As expected, this percentage was highest among those who had
visited San Luis Obispo County in the past two years (96%,
compared with 84% among those who had not).
%
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
34 | P a g e
· Respondents from Los Angeles/Orange County were much less
likely to correctly identify San Luis Obispo County (84%) than
those from the Central Valley (90%) or San Francisco Bay Area
(92%).
· Rural respondents identified San Luis Obispo County more often
(94%) than suburban (89%) or urban (87%) respondents.
· Correct identification increased with age, with nearly all (95%)
of respondents over 60 correctly identifying San Luis Obispo
County, compared with 88% among middle-aged respondents
and only 77% among respondents under 40.
· Respondents with the highest incomes correctly identified San
Luis Obispo County more often (94%) than those with middle
and lower incomes (86% each).
Figure 13
Correctly Identified San Luis Obispo County on a Map (in %)
(Base = All Respondents)
88%
95%
92%
90%
84%
87%
89%
94%
96%
84%
77%
88%
95%
91%
87%
86%
86%
94%
85%
89%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Total
City of SLO
SF Bay Area
Central Valley
LA/Orange County
Urban
Suburban
Rural
Visited SLO
Non-Visitor
40 Years & Younger
41-60 Years
60 Years +
Male
Female
<$60K/Year
$60K-$99K/Year
$100K+
Children at Home
No Children at Home
B.5-34
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
35 | P a g e
Awareness of San Luis Obispo County Areas
· Respondents who had not visited San Luis Obispo County within
the past two years were provided with a list of areas within the
County and asked to identify those with which they were
familiar.
· San Simeon (Hearst Castle) was the most frequently-selected
area, with 54% of respondents, followed by Pismo Beach (49%),
San Luis Obispo (47%), Morro Bay (43%), Paso Robles (31%) and
Wine Coast County unincorporated areas, such as Cambria and
Cayucos (21%).
· Overall, 17% of non-visitor respondents stated that they were
not familiar with any of the San Luis Obispo locations.
· Non-visitor respondents from the San Francisco Bay Area were
much more likely to be familiar with San Simeon/Hearst Castle
(58%, compared with 51% and 52% among those from the
Central Valley and Los Angeles/Orange County, respectively).
· Urban respondents were less familiar with all locations, with the
exception of Wine Coast County unincorporated areas.
· Familiarity with all areas increased with age; most notably, only
25% of non-visitor respondents under 40 were familiar with San
Simeon/Hearst Castle, compared with 57% among those over
60. Likewise, 31% of respondents under 40 stated that they
were not familiar with any of the locations, compared with 16%
among those between 40 and 60 and only 10% among those
over 60.
· Familiarity with most locations also generally increased with
income. Overall, 20% of respondents earning $60,000 or less
and 17% of those earning between $60,000 and $99,000 stated
that they were not familiar with any of the locations, compared
with 13% among those earning $100,000 or more.
· Non-visitor respondents with no children at home also had
higher familiarity with all locations; only 16% stated that they
were not familiar with any of the locations, compared with 24%
among those with children.
B.5-35
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
36 | P a g e
Figure 14
Non-Visitor Awareness of San Luis Obispo County Areas (in %)
(Base = Non-Visitors)
B. Perceptions of San Luis Obispo County
· The survey asked respondents several questions to gauge their
perceptions of San Luis Obispo County, including asking visitors
how they described their destination to others and how strongly
they agree with several statements and attributes describing
San Luis Obispo County.
Description of San Luis Obispo County Destination to Others
· The survey asked respondents who had visited San Luis Obispo
County in the past two years to indicate where they had told
friends they were going: a specific town, such as Morro Bay or
54%
49%
47%
43%
31%
21%
58%
47%
51%
42%
32%
18%
51%
50%
42%
39%
30%
18%
52%
51%
45%
47%
30%
25%
10%20%30%40%50%60%
San Simeon (Hearst Castle)
Pismo Beach
San Luis Obispo
Morro Bay
Paso Robles
Unincorporated
LA/Orange County Central Valley SF Bay Area Total
B.5-36
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
37 | P a g e
Pismo Beach; an attraction, such as Hearst Castle or wine
country; San Luis Obispo County by name; the California Coast;
Highway 1; or a natural attraction, such as Oceano Dunes.
· Respondents overwhelmingly stated that they were going to a
specific town (71%), followed by an attraction (11%) and San
Luis Obispo County (6%). Few respondents selected other
options.
· The percentage of visitor respondents who listed a specific town
was notably higher among those from the Central Valley (79%),
particularly when compared with those from Los
Angeles/Orange County (66%).
· Likewise, suburban and rural respondents were more likely to
indicate that they had specified a town (74% and 75%,
respectively) than urban respondents (65%).
· Responses varied less significantly by other demographics.
Middle-age and middle-income respondents were somewhat
less likely to have stated that they were going to a specific town
(68% and 67%, respectively, compared with 73% to 74% among
other groups), as were men (68% compared with 74% among
women) and those with children at home (67% compared with
73% among those without children).
B.5-37
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
38 | P a g e
Figure 15
How Visitors Described Their San Luis Obispo County Destination to Friends – Top 4 (in %)
(Base = Visitor Respondents)
71%
61%
71%
79%
66%
65%
74%
75%
73%
68%
68%
74%
73%
67%
67%
73%
11%
11%
10%
6%
15%
16%
8%
8%
15%
11%
13%
8%
13%
12%
12%
10%
6%
10%
5%
6%
7%
5%
6%
6%
3%
8%
6%
5%
5%
8%
11%
5%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Total
Pismo Beach
SF Bay Area
Central Valley
LA/Orange County
Urban
Suburban
Rural
40 Years & Younger
41-60 Years
60 Years +
Male
Female
<$60K/Year
$60K-$99K/Year
$100K+
Children at Home
No Children at Home
California Coast San Luis Obispo County An Attraction A Specific Town
%
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
39 | P a g e
Agreement Ratings: Statements about San Luis Obispo
County
· The survey provided both respondents who had visited San Luis
Obispo County in the past two years and those who had not
with a list of positive statements about the County, and asked
them to rate their agreement with each.
· Visitor respondents agreed strongly with most statements. They
most strongly agreed that San Luis Obispo County is “a place I
like to visit” (98%), “a place that has scenic wonders” (95%),
“accessible via Highway 1” (92%), “a place that offers outdoor
recreation” (92%), “a place that has the activities I like to do”
(92%), and “a place that has friendly people” (90%).
· Visitor respondents across demographics strongly agreed with
each of these statements; fluctuations within demographics
varied only between 90% and 100% agreement for the top two
statements, and between 85% and 95% for the other top
statements.
· Visitors were least likely to agree that San Luis Obispo County is
a destination that is pet friendly – only 40% of respondents
agreed with this statement, with most of the remaining
respondents (58%) indicating that they didn’t know whether it is
pet-friendly. Younger respondents were much more likely to
agree with this statement (62%), than middle-age or older
respondents (37% and 31% each). Those from the Central Coast
were also more likely to agree that San Luis Obispo is pet-
friendly (46%, compared with 39% among those from Los
Angeles/Orange County and 37% among those from the San
Francisco Bay Area).
· Non-visitor respondents agreed with the statements much less
frequently than visitors; however, when those who did not
agree with a statement generally selected “I don’t know” rather
than stating that they actually disagreed with the statement.
· Most non-visitor respondents agreed that San Luis Obispo
County is accessible by Highway 1 (73%); this percentage was
highest among those from the San Francisco Bay Area (78%) and
lowest among those from the Central Valley (69%), and
increased with age (from 57% among the youngest respondents
to 82% among the oldest).
· More than half of non-visitors agreed that San Luis Obispo
County offers outdoor recreation (65%), has scenic wonders
(61%), is a place they like to visit (53%), and has an interesting
history (52%).
· Like visitor respondents, non-visitors were least sure about
whether San Luis Obispo County is a pet-friendly destination.
Only 20% agreed that it is, and 79% stated they were unsure.
%
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
40 | P a g e
Table 3
San Luis Obispo County Statement Agreement Ratings (in %)
(Base = All Respondents)
Non-Visitor Previous Visitor City of SLO
Is pet friendly 20% 40%33%
Has lots of cutural activities & events 32% 62%67%
Is differenet from other parts of the California coast 45% 78%81%
Has interesting history 52% 80%80%
Has a wide variety of lodging 41% 81%78%
Is where a specific town I like to visit islocated 27% 85%87%
Has different communitites that are interesting 41% 86%82%
Has friendly people 49% 90%91%
Ha the activities I like to do 43% 92%94%
Offers out door recreation 65% 92%90%
Is accessible via Highway 1 73% 92%92%
Has scenic wonders 61% 95%95%
I like to visit 53% 98%99%
Attributes that Set San Luis Obispo Apart
· The survey provided both visitor and non-visitor respondents
with a list of attributes, and asked them to select all that they
felt helped set San Luis Obispo County apart from other rural
destinations.
· Both visitor and non-visitor respondents selected Hearst Castle
(70% and 66%, respectively) most often as the attribute that
sets San Luis Obispo County apart from other rural destinations.
A notable percentage also selected its Central Coast location
(54% among visitors and 44% among non-visitors).
· Visitor respondents were much more likely to select beaches
(68%, compared with 39% among non-visitors), wine
growing/tasting (56% compared with 40% among non-visitors).
· Visitor respondents were slightly less likely to select rural
experience (18%) than non-visitors (20%). Few respondents in
either group listed culture (16% and 10%, respectively) or
special events (15% and 8%).
B.5-40
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
41 | P a g e
Figure 16
Attributes that Set San Luis Obispo County Apart from Other Destinations (in %)
(Base = All Respondents)
· By region, visitor respondents from the San Francisco Bay Area
were much more likely to select Hearst Castle (78%, compared
with 67% among those from Los Angeles/Orange County and
65% among those from the Central Valley). Those from the
Central Valley were more likely to select beaches (76%,
compared with 66% among those from the San Francisco Bay
Area and 64% among those from Los Angeles/Orange County),
Central Coast location (66%, compared with 51% and 47%,
respectively) and Oceano Dunes (46%, compared with 25% and
24%, respectively).Finally, Los Angeles/Orange County
respondents were most likely to cite wine growing/tasting (65%,
compared with 54% among those from the San Francisco Bay
Area and only 46% among those from the Central Valley) and
history & heritage (40%, compared with 32% and 28%,
respectively). See Figure 21.
· Visitors from rural locations were much more likely to select
beaches (78%), Central Coast location (72%), outdoor
recreational activities (58%) and Oceano Dunes (50%) than
either urban or suburban respondents.
70%68%
56%54%
45%42%
34%31%
23%18%16%15%
0%
5%
66%
39%40%44%
23%21%
29%
19%
11%
20%
10%8% 8%5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Visited SLO in the Past Two Years Non-Visitors
B.5-41
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
42 | P a g e
· Older visitors were significantly more likely to select Hearst
Castle (81% among those over 60, compared with 64% among
those between 40 and 60 and 61% among those under 40),
Central Coast location (63%, compared with 48% and 47%,
respectively) and history & heritage (39%, compared with 33%
and 26%, respectively). Younger respondents were much more
likely to select beaches (77% among those under 40, compared
with 67% among those between 40 and 60, and 65% among
those over 60).
· Likelihood of selecting Hearst Castle, wine growing/tasting,
Central Coast location, and different communities all increased
notably with income among visitor respondents.
· Visitors with no children at home were more likely to select
wine growing/tasting (59%), Central Coast location (56%) and
friendly people (44%) as distinctive attributes than those with
children at home (42%, 44% and 33%, respectively).
Figure 17
Attributes that Set San Luis Obispo County Apart from Other Destinations (in %)
(Base = Visitor Respondents)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Total City of SLO SF Bay Area Central Valley LA/Orange County
B.5-42
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
43 | P a g e
Attribute Comparison
· The survey provided respondents who had visited San Luis
Obispo County within the past two years with a list of
attributes, and asked them to rate each attribute on how they
felt San Luis Obispo County compared with other destinations
they had visited. Respondents rated each attribute on a 7-point
scale ranging from much worse to much better.
· Overall, 80% of visitors agreed that San Luis Obispo’s scenic
beauty was better or much better than other destinations. Most
also agreed that San Luis Obispo County was better or much
better than other destinations in ambiance/local feel (69%),
natural wonders (61%), friendly people (59%), availability of
recreation (57%), ease of access (55%) and things to do (54%).
· Fewer visitors agreed that San Luis Obispo County was better
than other destinations for pet-friendliness (30%), special
events (33%) or price/value (38%).
Figure 18
San Luis Obispo Comparison Ratings – Top 2 Box: Better/Much Better (in %)
(Base = Visitor Respondents)
· Respondents from all regions considered San Luis Obispo
County better or much better than other destinations in scenic
beauty. However, they varied more in their agreement with
other attributes; those from the Central Valley respondents
tended to give the highest ratings, particularly for natural
wonders (72%, compared with 58% among those from the San
Francisco Bay Area and 56% among those from Los
Angeles/Orange County), friendly people (66%, compared with
52% and 59%, respectively), and availability of recreation (68%
compared with 53% and 51%, respectively). See Figure 23.
80%
69%
61%59%57%55%54%
48% 48%45%43%38%33%30%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
%
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
44 | P a g e
· Across all attributes, rural respondents were much more likely
than suburban and particularly urban respondents to rate San
Luis Obispo County as better or much better than other
destinations.
· In general, older respondents were somewhat less likely to
consider San Luis Obispo County better or much better than
other destinations in the top attributes, particularly natural
wonders (55%, compared with 62% among respondents under
40 and 68% among those between 40 and 60). However, they
were more likely to feel that San Luis Obispo was superior in
ease of access, dining and lodging quality and options, and
price/value.
Figure 19
San Luis Obispo Comparison Ratings – Top 2 Box: Better/Much Better (in %)
(Base = Visitor Respondents)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Total City of SLO SF Bay Area Central Valley LA/Orange County
%
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
45 | P a g e
Accessibility of San Luis Obispo County
· The survey asked all respondents to indicate how accessible
they felt San Luis Obispo County is compared with other
destinations that they have visited.
· Overall, only a small number of respondents felt that San Luis
Obispo County was much more accessible (11%) or much less
accessible (5%) compared with other destinations. Instead, the
largest percentage of respondents either considered it
somewhat more accessible (44%) or somewhat less accessible
(26%). An additional 14% were unsure how San Luis Obispo
County’s accessibility compared with other destinations.
· A slightly higher percentage of respondents from the Central
Valley felt that San Luis Obispo County was much more
accessible than other destinations (14%, compared with 12%
among those from Los Angeles/Orange County and 10% among
those from the San Francisco Bay Area). However, they were
also much less likely to consider it somewhat more accessible
(34%, compared with 50% of those from Los Angeles/Orange
County and 43% among those from the San Francisco Bay Area).
· As expected, respondents who had visited San Luis Obispo were
significantly more likely to consider it much more accessible
(19%) or somewhat more accessible (58%) than those who had
not (7% and 36%, respectively).
· Respondents who were 40 years old or younger were less likely
to consider San Luis Obispo County somewhat or much more
accessible (48% combined, compared with 58% among other
age groups).
%
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
46 | P a g e
Figure 20
Considered San Luis Obispo Somewhat or Much More Accessible than Other Destinations (in %)
(Base = All Respondents)
44%
61%
45%
34%
50%
40%
48%
38%
58%
36%
37%
46%
47%
48%
42%
42%
44%
46%
43%
44%
11%
21%
10%
14%
12%
14%
9%
15%
19%
7%
11%
12%
11%
11%
12%
12%
12%
10%
10%
12%
0%20%40%60%80%
Total
Pismo Beach
SF Bay Area
Central Valley
LA/Orange County
Urban
Suburban
Rural
Stayed in SLO past 2 Years
Non-Visitor
40 Years & Younger
41-60 Years
60 Years +
Male
Female
<$60K/Year
$60K-$99K/Year
$100K+
Children at Home
No Children at Home
Much More Accessible Somewhat More Accessible
B.5-46
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
47 | P a g e
Part 4: Branding
A. Advertising Recall
· The survey asked respondents to indicate if they recalled seeing
or hearing advertising for several California beach destinations,
for specific San Luis Obispo destinations, or for Sunset
Magazine’s “Savor the Central Coast” event.
California Beach Destinations Advertising Recall
· Respondents indicated if they recalled seeing or hearing any
advertising for several California beach destinations in the past
year.
· Overall, 68% of respondents recalled advertising for at least one
of the destinations, with 36% who recalled advertising from
Santa Cruz County, 35% who recalled advertising from
Monterey County, and 28% who recalled advertising from Santa
Barbara County. San Luis Obispo County ranked last in
advertising recall for all destinations, with 15%.
Figure 21
Advertising Recall for California Beach Destinations (in %)
(Base = All Respondents)
36%35%
28%
20%19%17%15%
32%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Santa Cruz
County
Monterey
County
Santa
Barbara
County
Newport
Beach
Santa MonicaLaguna Beach San Luis
Obispo
County
None of the
above
%
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
48 | P a g e
· Advertising recall varied significantly by respondent region.
Among respondents from the San Francisco Bay Area, 57%
recalled advertising for Santa Cruz County, compared with 45%
of respondents from the Central Valley and only 10% of
respondents from Los Angeles/Orange County, and 47%
recalled advertising for Monterey County, compared with 43%
and 18%, respectively. Conversely, those from Los
Angeles/Orange County were much more likely to recall
advertising from Santa Barbara County (41%), Newport Beach
(38%), Santa Monica (33%), and Laguna Beach (32%) than those
from the San Francisco Bay Area (with 19%, 9%, 9%, and 7%,
respectively) or from the Central Valley (with 20%, 9%, 10% and
9%, respectively). Awareness of advertising for San Luis Obispo
County remained low among respondents from all regions;
however, those from the Central Valley had slightly higher
advertising for San Luis Obispo County (20%) than those from
the San Francisco Bay Area (12%) or Los Angeles/Orange County
(15%).
· Rural respondents were more likely to recall advertising from
San Luis Obispo (24%) than suburban (17%) and urban
respondents (11%).
· Respondents who had visited San Luis Obispo County in the past
two years were significantly more likely to recall advertising
from it (30%) than non-visitors (7%). Interestingly, San Luis
Obispo County visitors were also notably more likely to recall
advertising from Santa Cruz County, Monterey County and
Santa Barbara County than non-visitors; only 23% stated that
they did not recall advertising from any destination, compared
with 37% among non-visitors.
· Advertising awareness increased with age for San Luis Obispo
County, as well as for Santa Cruz County, Monterey County and
Santa Barbara County, but decreased somewhat for Newport
Beach, Santa Monica, and Laguna Beach.
· Advertising awareness varied little by income, with the
exception of Santa Monica; 23% of respondents with middle
incomes and 19% of respondents with lower incomes recalled
advertising, compared with only 13% among those with the
highest incomes.
B.5-48
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
49 | P a g e
Figure 22
Advertising Recall – Beach Destinations – by Respondent Region (in %)
(Base = All Respondents)
San Luis Obispo County Destinations Advertising Recall
· Respondents indicated if they recalled seeing or hearing any
advertising for several San Luis Obispo County destinations
within the past year.
· Overall, 60% of respondents indicated that they had seen or
heard advertising for at least one San Luis Obispo County
destination. This is a significant difference from the percentage
of respondents who recalled advertising for San Luis Obispo
County (15%, see “California Beach Destination Advertising
Recall,” above).
· Advertising was most frequently recalled for San Simeon/Hearst
Castle (40%), followed by Pismo Beach (30%), San Luis Obispo
(26%), Morro Bay (25%), and Paso Robles (19%). Fewer
respondents recalled advertising from unincorporated areas like
Cambria and Cayucos (10%), Atascadero (4%), Arroyo Grande
(3%) or Grover Beach (3%).
36%35%
28%
20%19%17%15%
32%
47%
42% 42%
21%
15% 15%
33%
21%
57%
47%
19%
9%9%7%
12%
30%
45%43%
20%
9%10%9%
20%
31%
10%
18%
41%
38%
33%32%
15%
34%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Santa Cruz
County
Monterey
County
Santa
Barbara
County
Newport
Beach
Santa
Monica
Laguna
Beach
San Luis
Obispo
County
None of the
above
Total Pismo Beach SF Bay Area Central Valley LA/Orange County
%
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
50 | P a g e
Figure 23
Advertising Recall for San Luis Obispo County Destinations (in %)
(Base = All Respondents)
· By region, respondents from the Central Valley tended to have
higher advertising recall; 33% stated that they did not recall
advertising from any San Luis Obispo location, compared with
41% among those from Los Angeles/Orange County and 44%
among those from the San Francisco Bay Area. Their recall was
notably higher for San Simeon/Hearst Castle (49%, compared
with 36% among Los Angeles/Orange County respondents and
39% among those from the San Francisco Bay Area) as well as
Pismo Beach (39%, compared with 29% and 25%, respectively).
· Likewise, rural respondents had higher advertising recall than
suburban or urban respondents; only 26% stated that they had
not seen or heard advertising for any San Luis Obispo County
destination, compared with 39% among suburban respondents
and 45% among urban respondents.
· Respondents who had visited San Luis Obispo County in the past
two years had significantly higher advertising recall for most San
Luis Obispo County destinations, particularly for San
Simeon/Hearst Castle (51%, compared with 34% among non-
visitors), Pismo Beach (49% and 18%, respectively), San Luis
Obispo (39% and 19%, respectively), Morro Bay (39% and 16%,
respectively) and Paso Robles (29% and 14%, respectively).
40%
30%
26%
25%
19%
10%
4%
3%
3%
40%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
San Simeon (Hearst Castle)
Pismo Beach
San Luis Obispo
Morro Bay
Paso Robles
Unincorporated area
Atascadero
Arroyo Grande
Grover Beach
None of the above
B.5-50
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
51 | P a g e
Overall, only 21% of visitors reported no advertising recall for
any destination, compared with 51% among non-visitors.
· Advertising awareness increased with age, particularly for San
Simeon/Hearst Castle (52% among the oldest respondents,
compared with 39% among middle-aged respondents and only
24% among the youngest respondents), and Morro Bay (31%,
23% and 15%, respectively). Only 31% of respondents over 60
stated that they had not seen or heard advertising for any San
Luis Obispo County destinations, compared with 43% among
those between 40 and 60 and 51% among those younger than
40.
B.5-51
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
52 | P a g e
Figure 24
Advertising Recall – San Luis Obispo County Destinations – by Respondent Region (in %)
(Base = All Respondents)
40%
30%
26%
25%
19%
10%
4%
3%
3%
40%
48%
61%
36%
35%
29%
14%
6%
2%
5%
26%
39%
25%
26%
20%
19%
7%
4%
3%
2%
44%
49%
39%
27%
27%
19%
14%
3%
4%
4%
33%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
San Simeon (Hearst Castle)
Pismo Beach
San Luis Obispo
Morro Bay
Paso Robles
Unincorporated area
Atascadero
Arroyo Grande
Grover Beach
None of the above
LA/Orange County Central Valley SF Bay Area Pismo Beach Total
%
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
53 | P a g e
“Savor the Central Coast Event” Advertising Recall
· The survey asked respondents if they recalled seeing or hearing
any advertising for Sunset Magazine’s “Savor the Central Coast”
event.
· Overall, only 16% of respondents recalled advertising for the
event. This percentage varied little by respondent region or
demographic. The most significant differences existed among
rural respondents, those who had visited San Luis Obispo within
the past two years, and middle-aged respondents, which all had
somewhat higher recall than other respondents (21%, 21% and
20%, respectively).
Figure 25
Advertising Recall for Sunset Magazine’s “Savor the Central Coast” Event (in %)
(Base = All Respondents)
16%
18%
17%
15%
16%
13%
17%
21%
21%
13%
11%
20%
15%
14%
18%
14%
17%
18%
18%
16%
0%10%20%30%
Total
Pismo Beach
SF Bay Area
Central Valley
LA/Orange County
Urban
Suburban
Rural
Stayed in SLO past 2 Years
Non-Visitor
40 Years & Younger
41-60 Years
60 Years +
Male
Female
<$60K/Year
$60K-$99K/Year
$100K+
Children at Home
No Children at Home
%
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
54 | P a g e
B. Taglines
· The survey provided respondents with several taglines
describing San Luis Obispo County, and asked them to rate each
one on how well it describes San Luis Obispo County and how
much it would motivate them to seek information about visiting
San Luis Obispo County, and to select the single tagline they
liked best. Respondents used a five point scale from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) for the first two questions.
· Overall, respondents felt that “Wine Coast County” best
described San Luis Obispo County (giving it an average rating of
3.6 out of 5) and would most motivate them to seek out more
information about it (3.5 out of 5). They also gave very high
ratings to “Your Wine and Waves Destination” (3.5 each),
“Discover” (3.4 and 3.3, respectively) and to “Authentic
California” (3.3 and 3.2, respectively).
· Despite the close ratings among these taglines, respondents
clearly preferred “Your Wine and Waves Destination” to all
other taglines, with 32% of respondents selecting it as their
favorite, followed by 19% who selected “Wine Coast County,”
17% who selected “Authentic California” and 16% who selected
“Discover.”
Figure 26
Tagline that Best Describes/Would Motivate to Find out More about San Luis Obispo County (average)
Tagline Liked Best (in %)
(Base = All Respondents)
3.5 3.6
3.3 3.4 3.2
2.9 2.8
3.5 3.5
3.2 3.3 3.1 2.9 2.8
32%
19%
17%16%
8%
6%
3%
-
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
0
1
2
3
4
5
Your Wine and
Waves
Destination
Wine Coast
County
Authetic
California
Discover Time to Play Sincerely
California
Pure Play
Best Describes Motivates Like Most
Strongly
agree
Strongly
disagree
%
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
55 | P a g e
· Respondent preferences varied somewhat by region; although
respondents from all regions selected “Your Wine and Waves
Destination” as their favorite tagline, those from the San
Francisco Bay Area were slightly less enthusiastic about it (29%)
than those from Los Angeles/Orange County (32%) and those
from the Central Valley (35%). Conversely, they had a stronger
preference for “Discover,” with 22% compared with 16% among
Los Angeles/Orange County respondents and 11% among those
from the Central Valley.
· Interestingly, tagline preference varied little between
respondents who had visited San Luis Obispo County in the past
two years and non-visitors, at least among the most popular
taglines. Among the less-popular taglines, non-visitors slightly
preferred “Discover” (18% compared with 13% among visitors)
and visitors slightly preferred “Time to Play” (11%, compared
with 6% among non-visitors).
· By age, preference for “Your Wine and Waves Destination”
decreased slightly with age (from 35% among those under 40 to
30% among those over 60) while preference for “Discover”
increased (from 11% among those under 40 to 19% among
those over 60).
· Tagline preference varied little by income.
· Respondents without children at home strongly preferred
“Wine Coast County” (21%) compared with those with children
at home (12%).
%
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
56 | P a g e
Part 5: Respondent Profile
· The respondent sample represented a mix of genders,
household incomes, ethnicities, and regions, as well as of those
with and without children at home.
· The respondent sample included a somewhat higher percentage
of women (59%) then men (42%).
· The sample was distributed across incomes, with an average
income of $87,710 per year.
· Most respondents were white (82%), followed by Asian
American (6%), Hispanic/Latino (5%), African American (2%) and
Native American (1%).
· Only about 18% of respondents reported having children at
home, compared with 41% who were empty nesters and 42%
who had no children. About half (54%) were married, followed
by 40% who were single and 6% who were widowed.
Figure 27
Respondent Demographics (in %)
(Base = All Respondents)
59%
42%
40%
32%
27%
18%
41%
42%
40%
54%
6%
82%
6%
5%
2%
1%
4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Women
Men
<$60,000
$60,000-$99,000
$100,000+
Children at Home
Empty Nester
No Children
Single
Married
Widowed
Caucasian/White
Asian American
Hispanic/Latino
African American
Native American
Other
B.5-56
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
57 | P a g e
Part 6: Factors Driving Visit to City of
San Luis Obispo
· The survey provided respondents with a list of factors, and
asked them to select the top five that drive their interest to
travel to the City of San Luis Obispo.
· This section is included only in the City of San Luis Obispo
partner report.
· The most frequently-selected reasons included dining and
restaurants (70%), affordability (66%) and quaint downtown
(66%), followed by outdoor activities/open space (48%), San
Luis Obispo wine country (44%) and historical sites (43%).
· In general, responses from those who had visited San Luis
Obispo County did not vary significantly from respondents
overall. However, they were more likely to select quaint
downtown (73%) and historical sites (51%) than other
respondents.
B.5-57
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
58 | P a g e
Figure 28
Top 5 Factors Driving Interest in Traveling to the City of San Luis Obispo (in %)
(Base = All Respondents)
70%
66%
66%
48%
44%
43%
40%
34%
30%
19%
12%
11%
8%
8%
67%
62%
73%
42%
38%
51%
44%
38%
18%
18%
14%
10%
15%
10%
74%
69%
66%
56%
46%
39%
37%
29%
21%
12%
17%
14%
9%
11%
72%
60%
63%
49%
53%
37%
37%
33%
34%
17%
15%
13%
12%
8%
72%
70%
63%
50%
45%
47%
33%
33%
24%
19%
13%
11%
15%
6%
- 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Dining and Restaurants
Affordability
Quaint Downtown
Outdoor Activities/ Open Space
SLO Wine Country
Historical Sites
Centralized Location
Special Events and Activities
Shopping
Thursday Night Farmers Market
Art Galleries
Nightlife
Cal Poly
Theater and Performances
LA/Orange County Central Valley SF Bay Area City of SLO Total
B.5-58
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
59 | P a g e
Appendix: Survey Questionnaire
I. Where do you live?
· Northern California
· Central California
· Southern California
· Outside of California (terminate)
II. What is your zip code?
III. What is your age?
· <18 (terminate)
· 18-24
· 25-30
· 31-40
· 41-50
· 51-60
· 60+
IV. When was the last time you did any traveling that included an overnight stay away from home?
· Within the past 6 months
· 6 - 12 months ago
· 13 - 24 months ago (terminate if more than 12 months)
· 25 - 36 months ago
· More than 36 months ago
==========================================================================================
B.5-59
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
60 | P a g e
Greetings,
We would like to ask you to participate in a short survey to better understand your perspective on a number of
issues related to traveling In California’s Central Coast region. Your information will be kept confidential and used
for statistical purposes only to help us improve our offerings.
Thank you for your participation!
All Respondents
1. In which of the following areas is San Luis Obispo County located? Please answer this question without
looking it up – we will give you the answer on the following page.
· A
· B
· C
· D
· E
%
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
61 | P a g e
Correct answer map:
2. Have you visited San Luis Obispo County for an overnight trip within the past 2 years?
_____Yes (Go To Question 3)
_____No (Go to Question 12)
Previous Visitor
3. If yes how many times have you visited San Luis Obispo County for an overnight trip in the last 2 years?
______ Number of trip(s)
4. Thinking about your last overnight trip to San Luis Obispo County where did you tell your friends you were
going?
_____I just mentioned San Luis Obispo County
_____A specific town (for example: Morro Bay, Paso Robles, Pismo Beach, San Luis Obispo, and Grover Beach)
_____ A natural attraction (for example: Oceano Dunes)
_____ An attraction (for example: Hearst Castle, wine country)
_____California Coast
_____Highway 1
_____The Central Coast
_____Other
_____Did not mention to friends that I was going anywhere
B.5-61
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
62 | P a g e
5. Thinking about your last overnight trip to San Luis Obispo County, where did you stay?
_____ Pismo Beach
_____San Luis Obispo
_____Paso Robles
_____Morro Bay
_____ Wine Coast County -Unincorporated area (Cambria, Cayucos)
_____ Grover Beach
_____Atascadero
_____Arroyo Grande
_____Other
6. During which season did you take your last overnight trip to San Luis Obispo County?
______ Winter (Dec 21 - Mar 19)
______ Spring (Mar 20 - Jun 20)
______ Summer (Jun 20 - Sep 21)
______ Fall (Sep 22 - Dec 20)
7. Thinking about your last overnight trip, what was your primary reason for visiting San Luis Obispo County?
_____ Pleasure/vacation
_____ Visit friend/relative
_____ Incentive group
_____ Business meeting/convention/seminar
_____ Special event
_____ Wedding
_____ Other, please specify_______
8. Thinking about your last overnight trip to San Luis Obispo County, which of the following activities did you
participate in? Please select all that apply.
_____Surfing (Beach Play)
_____ Fishing
_____ Fine dining
_____Cal Poly
_____Performing Arts Center
_____Hearst Castle
_____ Golf
_____ Hiking
_____ Horseback riding
_____ Jet skiing / water skiing
_____Kayaking
_____Motorcycle touring (on pavement)
_____Off road motorcycle/ATV
_____ Mountain biking
_____ Road cycling
_____ Sightseeing
_____ Shopping
_____Wine tasting
_____ Special event
_____ Other
B.5-62
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
63 | P a g e
9. Thinking about your perceptions of San Luis Obispo County, please indicate whether you agree or disagree
with the following statements.
San Luis Obispo County is:
Agree Disagree Don’t Know
… a place that has a wide variety of lodging
… a place that offers outdoor recreation
… a place that has an interesting history
… a place that has lots of cultural activities and events
… accessible via highway1
… a place I like to visit
… a place that has the activities I like to do
… a place that has friendly people
… a place that has scenic wonders
… a place that is different from other parts of the
California Coast
… where the specific town I like to visit is located
…a destination/region that is pet friendly
…is a destination with different communities that are
interesting
10. From what you know about San Luis Obispo County, which of the following attributes set it apart from other
rural destinations?
Please select all that apply.
____Outdoor recreational activities
____History & heritage
____Culture
____Rural experience
____ Beaches
____ Wine growing or tasting
____Different communities
____Central Coast location
____Hearst Castle
____Oceano Dunes
____Special events
____Friendly people
____Other (please specify)_____________
____ None of the above
%
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
64 | P a g e
11. Thinking about other destinations you have visited, how would you rate San Luis Obispo County on each of
the following with 1= much better and 7 =much worse?
Much Better Much Worse
Lodging quality 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Lodging variety 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Price/value 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Scenic beauty 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Friendly people 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Natural wonders 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Ease of access 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Availability of recreation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Dining quality 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Dining options 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Special events 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Things to do 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Ambiance /local feel 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Pet Friendly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
[Visitors skip to Q.16]
Non-Visitor
12. What is the primary reason you have not visited San Luis Obispo County?
_____ Lack of lodging choices that I like
_____ Destination does not have activities that appeal to me
_____ It is too far
_____Lodging rates
_____ Impact of the recession; we reduced our trips
_____ Friends/family who we travel with can’t make it
_____ Going to a different destination
_____ Gas prices
_____ Just never thought about it
_____ No nightlife
_____Is not pet friendly
_____Lacks good beaches
_____ Other, please specify _____
%
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
65 | P a g e
13. Thinking about your perceptions of San Luis Obispo County, please indicate whether you agree or disagree
with the following statements.
San Luis Obispo County is:
Agree Disagree Don’t Know
… a place that has a wide variety of lodging
… a place that offers outdoor recreation
… a place that has an interesting history
… a place that has lots of cultural activities and events
… accessible via highway1
… a place I like to visit
… a place that has the activities I like to do
… a place that has friendly people
… a place that has scenic wonders
… a place that is different from other parts of the
California Coast
… where the specific town I like to visit is located
…a destination/region that is pet friendly
…is a destination with different communities that are
interesting
14. From what you know about San Luis Obispo County, which of the following attributes set it apart from other
coastal destinations?
Please select all that apply.
____Outdoor recreational activities
____History & heritage
____Culture
____Rural experience
____ Beaches
____ Wine growing or tasting
____Different communities
____Central Coast location
____Hearst Castle
____Oceano Dunes
____Special events
____Friendly people
____ None of the above
____Other
15. Which of the following San Luis Obispo County destinations are you most familiar with?
Please select all that apply.
_____ Pismo Beach
_____San Luis Obispo
_____Paso Robles
_____Morro Bay
_____ Wine Coast County-Unincorporated area (Cambria, Cayucos)
_____ Grover Beach
_____Atascadero
_____Arroyo Grande
_____San Simeon (Hearst Castle)
_____I'm not at all familiar with any of these
%
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
66 | P a g e
All Respondents
16. Thinking about the overnight vacations you will take in the next 24 months, what areas are you most likely
to visit?
Select most likely to visit?
_____ Beach area
_____Wine country
_____Ski area/mountain destination
_____Major city/urban area
_____Cruise
_____ Will not visit any
_____Other, please specify_____
17. Do you recall seeing or hearing any advertising from any of the following beach destinations?
Please select all that apply.
_____Santa Barbara County
_____Monterey County
_____Santa Cruz County
_____Santa Monica
_____Newport Beach
_____Laguna Beach
_____San Luis Obispo County
_____None of the above
18. Do you recall seeing any advertisements for or hearing about Sunset Magazine’s “Savor the Central Coast”
event?
_____ Yes
_____No
19. For which of the following do you recall seeing or hearing advertising for any of the following San Luis
Obispo destinations?
_____ Pismo Beach
_____San Luis Obispo
_____Paso Robles
_____Morro Bay
_____ Unincorporated area (Cambria, Cayucos)
_____ Grover Beach
_____Atascadero
_____Arroyo Grande
_____San Simeon (Hearst Castle)
_____None of the above
%
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
67 | P a g e
20. When you are considering visiting a California Coastal destination, which of the following is more important
in your decision to visit?
· The assets/attractions offered by a single, specific destination within a region
o Example: You decide to visit a specific city or place for activities that are available
specifically in that city or place
· A variety of the assets/attractions/places that a region/county can offer
o Example: You decide to visit San Luis Obispo County in order to access the activities
offered by a variety of cities/places in the county
[Phrasing changed to make it similar in structure to previous example]
21. From your perspective how accessible is San Luis Obispo County compared to other destinations you visit?
_____Much more accessible compared with other destinations
_____Somewhat more accessible to get to compared with other destinations
_____Somewhat less accessible to get to compared with other destinations
_____Much less accessible to get to compared with other destinations
_____Don’t know
22. On a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 =Very likely and 1=Not at all likely, how likely are you to recommend to a friend,
family member or colleague to visit each of the following destinations for an overnight trip?
Not at All Very Not
Likely Likely Familiar
Santa Barbara County 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0
Monterey County 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0
Santa Cruz County 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0
Santa Monica 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0
Newport Beach 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0
Laguna Beach 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0
San Luis Obispo County 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0
23. In thinking about a trip to San Luis Obispo what would be most important in your decision to visit San Luis
Obispo County?
_____A specific location within the county
_____The available activities/events throughout the county
24. San Luis Obispo County has been described as being located on the Central Coast, and having a variety of
recreation, activities, local history, shopping and culture. Given this description, which of the following brand
taglines do you think best describes San Luis Obispo County?
1 –
Strongly
Dislike
2 – Dislike 3- Neutral 4- Like 5 -
Strongly
Like
Wine Coast Country
Sincerely California
Authentic California
Your wine and waves destination
Discover
Time to play
Pure play
%
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
68 | P a g e
25. Which of the following brand taglines would motivate you to find out more information about visiting San
Luis Obispo County?
1 –
Strongly
Disagree
2 –
Disagree
3- Neutral 4- Agree 5 -
Strongly
Agree
Wine Coast Country
Sincerely California
Authentic California
Your wine and waves destination
Discover
Time to play
Pure play
26. Which of the following tag lines do you like best?
Wine Coast County
Sincerely California
Authentic California
Your wine and waves destination
Discover
Time to play
Pure play
27. Please rate how influential each of the following would be in your decision to take a future overnight visit to
San Luis Obispo County.
1-
No Value
2 –
Little Value
3 –
Unsure/
Neutral
4 –
Some Value
5 –
Tremendous
Value
Activities you like to
participate in
Visiting Hearst Castle
Visit Oceano Dunes
Visit Cal Poly San Luis Obispo
Touring Highway 1
Attending a special event
Just to get away
Good lodging prices
Wine Tasting
To visit a specific town (i.e.
Pismo Beach, San Luis
Obispo, Paso Robles etc.)
%
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
69 | P a g e
28. When seeking a beach/coastal travel experience, what destination attributes are most important in making
your decision? (Please rank the following in order of importance, with 1 being most important.)
___ Proximity to wineries
___ Oceanfront hotels and restaurants
___ Affordability
___ Sandy, walkable beach
___ Pier
___ Drivable beach
___ Dog-friendly hotels and restaurants
___ Ocean adventure activities (i.e. kayaking, surfing, etc.)
___ Other, please list: ____________________________
29. Select the top five (5) factors driving your interest to travel to the City of San Luis Obispo on your next visit
to the Central Coast.
· Centralized Location
· Affordability
· Thursday Night Farmers Market
· Theater and Performances
· Dining and Restaurants
· SLO Wine Country
· Historical Sites
· Outdoor Activities/ Open Space
· Nightlife
· Shopping
· Quaint Downtown
· Art Galleries
· Cal Poly
· Special Events and Activities
30. When you think of Paso Robles, what are the top three leisure activities that come to mind?
____Wine tasting
____Dining/cuisine
____Food and wine events
____CA mid-state fair
____ Family events and activities
____ Agri-tourism adventures
____ Downtown shopping
____ Downtown City Park,
____ Hearst Castle
____ Music and cultural events
____Olive oil tasting
__ I am not familiar with Paso Robles
B.5-69
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
70 | P a g e
31. When considering a visit to Morro Bay, please rank the following “prime reasons to visit” from 1 – 10.
(1 is most likely, 10 is least likely)
___ Fresh Seafood 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
___ Affordability 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
___ Outdoor Activities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(Hiking, fishing, golf, kayaking)
___ Rest, relaxation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
___Nature, scenery 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
___ Romantic getaway 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
___ Attend local events 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(Harbor Festival, Oyster Festival, etc.)
___ Central location 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
___ Shopping 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
___ Historic working
Fishing Village 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
___ Wine Tasting 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
___Would not consider
32. What do you think of when you hear of Wine Coast Country, the San Luis Obispo County unincorporated
region? (Check all that apply)
___Ten Destinations
___The Discovery Route
___Vacation Package Deals
___Diverse Lodging Options
___Small Beach Towns
___Wine Touring and Tasting
___Rural Getaways
___Historic Attractions
___Other (Please list any that come to mind)
___Not aware of wine coast country
33. What is your gender?
· Male
· Female
35. What is your annual household income?
· <$29,000
· $30,000–39,999
· $40,000–49,999
· $50,000–59,999
· $60,000–69,999
· $70,000–99,999
· $100,000–149,999
· $150,000–200,000
· $200,000+
36. Do you have children?
· Yes, children at home
· Yes, empty nester
· No children
%
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
71 | P a g e
37. Are you:
· Single
· Married
· Widowed
38. What is your ethnicity?
· African American
· Asian American
· Caucasian/White
· Hispanic/Latino
· Native American
· Other
B.5-71
San Luis Obispo County Visitor Survey
72 | P a g e
The Strategic Marketing Group is a Tourism,
Recreation and Hospitality consulting firm.
For more information:
www.smgonline.net
B.5-72
Tourism Business Improvement District
Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
10 am
City Hall - Council Hearing Room
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Clint Pearce
PRESENT: Koper, Walker, Hutton
STAFF PRESENT: Molly Cano, Tourism Manager; Claire Clark, Economic Development
Manager
Chair Pearce Call to Order at 10:01 am
PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
CONSENT AGENDA
ACTION: Moved by Hutton/Walker to approve the consent agenda.
Motion carried 4:0
PRESENTATIONS
1. QUARTERLY REPORT BY CONTRACTOR
The SLO Chamber of Commerce announced the upcoming move to the new office location
the last week of February. The new location will feature a new neon “Welcome” sign funded
by the PCC and will serve the community and visitors alike when locating visitor
information. Lindsey Miller and Grace Allen reported on the quarterly results from the
Chambers contract for October- December 2012. Allen noted that the 1-800 number was
not being utilized as often as expected and encouraged the TBID to consider where to
include the number on marketing materials.
2. NATURE CORPS PROGRAM UPDATE
Mark Landon of the Nature Corps presented an update on the program since December.
Landon shared the 4 new event dates throughout the spring, focusing on themed packaged
weekends to generate interest. Promotions for these dates include email promotions to
over 8500 contacts though various partnerships and facebook ads placed by Rosetta.
Landon is working with a local partner to develop retreat package options for corporate
DRAFT
/5&D
Tourism Board Improvement District Minutes Page 2
groups to include team building activities and work sessions. Landon also shared that the
interest is being generated from new clients resulting in the booking of the first group
scheduled for late March. The board commented on the success of this first booking but
also encouraged Landon to create new interest and ideas for new promotion of the
packages like short YouTube videos.
BUSINESS ITEMS
1. VISIT SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY & SAVOR 2013
Representatives from Visit San Luis Obispo County presented the quarterly update
through a visual report of accomplishments over the past year of VCB efforts. They also
announced the name change to Visit San Luis Obispo County and are currently in
development of the new website at visitsanluisobispocounty.com due for soft launch in
May. The website will also feature a calendar of events portal capable of populating events
for specific cities only. They also highlighted additional efforts including PR, group sales,
restaurant month, and film commission. Following the update, Jacob presented the official
request for funding for the 2013-14 FY at $104,997 plus the lodging membership fees for
the board’s consideration. This year there is the option to add restaurant membership as
well. Official funding letters will be distributed within the month.
Jacob and Wells also presented the options for SAVOR 2013 sponsorship. There were 4
package options to choose from ranging in price from $30,000-$75,000. The board
discussed the various packages. They were very interested in the complete $75,000
sponsorship, but wanted to leave the opportunity available to the PCC for a portion of the
funding. The board noted that if the PCC does contribute the reaming cost for the
sponsorship, the TBID Board would like to consider the additional opportunity.
ACTION: Moved by Koper/Walker to sponsor SAVOR 2013 at $65,000 for package 1
to include the SAVOR Run and bag sponsorship, with the option to consider
that remaining package add-on value at $10,000 for the ShareSLO stage at a
later date.
Motion carried 3:0
Abstention: Pearce
Vice Chair Hutton recommended the continued consideration of the 2013-14 funding
request and current pending contract obligations at a later meeting.
Walker departed the meeting.
2. SLO MARATHON 2013
Race organizers presented an update on the race planning, highlighting that 28 states and
nearly 400 cities were represented by runners. They reported that the planning is going
strong and they are expecting a very successful race again in 2013. They presented the
board with the additional sponsorship opportunity for the sweat bags for the runners.
About 5200 bags will be distributed to runners. The cost of sponsoring the bags is $5000
LRC.2a-2
Tourism Board Improvement District Minutes Page 3
and would include the logo printed on the bag. Due to lack of quorum the board
recommended the consideration of this item at a later meeting.
3. EVENTS PROMOTION SUBCOMMITTEE
Vice chair Hutton reported on the joint-subcommittee meeting. He highlighted the recap
from the SLO GranFondo race. He also presented the funding recommendation for Roll out
the Barrels, June 2013 that was presented at the January subcommittee meeting. Based on
the opportunity for added exposure, unique hotel package options, marketing outreach,
and exclusive lodging promotion the subcommittee recommended sponsoring the event at
$5000. The committee discussed the opportunity and agreed that this opened an
opportunity to be more closely connected with wine country.
ACTION: Moved by Hutton/Koper to sponsor Roll out the Barrels at $5,000.
Motion carried 3:0
4. CAL POLY ARTS: LA GUITARRA 2013
The Board received a presentation from Cal Poly Arts for the sponsorship request for La
Guitarra Festival September 6-8, 2013 at Cal Poly Performing Arts Center. The board
requested to table the decision on the sponsorship until a later meeting.
Due to limited time available, the board requested staff to move business items 5, 6, and 7
to a special meeting later in the month.
5. TBID STRATEGY RETREAT
Moved to special meeting agenda.
6. 2013-15 BUDGET TASK FORCE
Moved to special meeting agenda.
7. FUND BALANCE POLICY
Moved to special meeting agenda.
8. CAL POLY ATHLETICS
The board reviewed the contract addendum with Cal Poly Athletics for additional 50
hosted rooms for the remainder of 2012-13 FY and for the 2013-14 FY. Staff commented
that there is no additional financial investment for the rooms in the current FY since the
reimbursement budget was based on the negotiated 575 rooms. The board discussed the
success of the program and the benefit to the hotels and relationship with Cal Poly.
ACTION: Moved by Hutton/Koper to accept the terms in the addendum from Cal Poly
Athletics for the 50 additional rooms in 2012-13 and 2013-14.
Motion carried 3:0
LRC.2a-3
Tourism Board Improvement District Minutes Page 4
9. ROSETTA REPORT & SHARESLO CAMPAIGN UPDATE
Rosetta presented the quarterly report for the contracted obligations highlighting PR
accomplishments like LA Times mentions for Granada Inn and Restaurant Month. Allshouse
also highlighted web results including total visits to the website in January 2013 was up
23% over 2012 to 17,724 visits. Allshouse provide an update on Phase 1 of the ShareSLO
campaign noting that at that time 41 videos were entered into the contest, generated over
3,000 new page “likes”, and over 200,000 impressions. The top 10 will be selected on
February 18 for the interview process. Allshouse requested the participation of a board
member on the interview panel. After discussion the board recommended that staff offer
the opportunity to either Patel or Walker, and if neither were interested than Board Chair
Pearce would participate.
COMMITTEE COMMUNICATION
TOURISM PROGRAM UPDATE
Molly Cano presented the tourism program update. The update included a recap of the
January LA Travel show the city attended that drew over 28,000 attendees from all over
the LA region. The city’s booth featured a photo booth that captured images of over 300
groups and provided the printed pictures as takeaways with the
sanluisobispovacations.com website. The representation also garnered over 600 new
consumer newsletter sign-ups which increased the email distribution list to over 10,000.
Cano will be traveling to the Bay area for a similar northern CA travel show in February.
Staff also updated the board on the work on the newsletter to the membership with
program results and highlight to encourage member communication and awareness. Cano
is looking into available programs for distribution. Cano also commented on the success of
the CCTC planning retreat in early February highlighting the new strategic direction for the
organization, the refocused approach to international markets, and the commissioning of a
long-term marketing plan. Cano also updated the board on the advisory body interview
process. There are two renewal seats for the board member to be re-appointed for the
addition ter. Both of those board members are seeking reappointment. There are also two
vacant seats that the advisory body interview panel for the TBID is interviewing candidates
to fill. The appointment of the board members will take place at the City Council meeting on
March 19, 2013.
Issue update: Cano presented the concern brought to the attention of the city regarding
vacation rentals in the City of SLO. Action is being taken by code enforcement and the city is
dedicating time to address the issue.
Board recommended the special meeting for Tuesday, February 19 at 10am.
Meeting adjourned at 12:15 pm
LRC.2a-4
Tourism Business Improvement District
Special Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
10 am
Apple Farm Inn
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Clint Pearce
PRESENT: Patel, Hutton, Koper
STAFF PRESENT: Molly Cano, Tourism Manager; Claire Clark, Economic Development
Manager
Chair Pearce Call to Order at 10:07 am
PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
BUSINESS ITEMS
Due to lack of quorum Board Chair Pearce moved business items 3 and 4 to the top of the
agenda.
3. SAVOR/ MARATHON ADVENTURE TOUR
The board asked staff to present various options for tour ideas in and around the city.
These ideas included downtown, outdoor adventures, and wine country. After discussion of
the options, the board recommended pursing the wine country tour. Since wine country
will be impacted by the Marathon events and road closures, the board wanted to feature
the wineries through the tour opportunity. The board asked staff to work with SAVOR and
the SLO Wine Country Association to finalize the arrangements.
4. TBID STRATEGY RETREAT
The board discussed hosting a strategy retreat for the purpose of creating a three to five
year strategic plan with input from for the board and membership participation in the
strategic development of the TBID. The board asked staff to present an overview of the
breadth of the opportunity and the possible suggested facilitator. The board received
public comment encouraging the consideration of other proposals from facilitators and
having the communication come from the Tourism Manager as the representative of the
board. The board asked staff to continue setting the ground work and outreach to identify
alternate consultants to bid on the project.
DRAFT
LCR.2b-1
Tourism Board Improvement District Minutes Page 2
1. SLO MARATHON 2013
The board continued the consideration of the additional $5000 sponsorship opportunity
with the SLO Marathon for the sweat bags. Vice Chair Hutton introduced the opportunity to
the board for the sponsorship of the 5200 sweat bags provided to the participants. The
board discussed the opportunity and agreed it would be an added value to the sponsorship
and support of the marathon.
ACTION: Moved by Patel/Koper for exclusive sponsorship of the SLO Marathon race
sweat bags at $5000 that would include the logo, website, and 800 number
for the TBID.
Motion carried 3:0
Abstention: Pearce
2. VISIT SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
Vice Chair Hutton introduced the item to the board that based on the contract for services
with the VCB, the payment of membership dues for the TBID constituents would not be made
until the completion of the website redesign. As stated in the contract at the 6 month timeline, the
issues would be reconsidered by the board. The website has not yet been completed and is
expected to be finished by the May 2013. Hutton read options provided by the Visit San Luis
Obispo County to address the pending payment for the board’s consideration.
ACTION: Moved by Patel/Koper continue to hold the membership fees until the
website is complete as stated in the contract.
Motion carried 3:0
Abstention: Pearce
5. FUND BALANCE POLICY
The board continued the consideration of a fund balance policy. The board asked staff to
present the outcome of the city audit for 2011-12 and the fund balance concept due to the
assumed budget projections. Staff presented that the audit uncovered $160,866.82 in un-
appropriated funds from 2011-12 and the establishment of a fund balance policy would
ensure the TBID was being fiscally responsible. The board could allocate a portion of the
un-appropriated funds identified from the audit to maintain a fund balance. Based on
analysis of the increase projections in the assessment collections and possible short falls, it
is recommended the TBID consider a fund balance reserve of $100,000 and establish a
written policy. The board discussed the consideration of the fund balance.
ACTION: Moved by Patel/Hutton to maintain a fund balance of $100,000.
Motion carried 4:0
ACTION: Moved by Hutton/Patel to move the remaining $60,866.82 un-appropriated
funds into the current TBID operating budget.
Motion carried 4:0
The board reviewed the draft fund balance language and requested that staff provide it to
the board for consideration at the March board meeting.
LCR.2b-2
Tourism Board Improvement District Minutes Page 3
6. 2013-14 BUDGET TASK FORCE
The board assigned a task force to establish a recommendation for 2013-14 budget
allocations. The task force includes: Vice-Chair Hutton, Commissioner Patel, and
constituent Tim Billings. The board requested that all contractor presentations be made to
the board for initial consideration and direction from the board to the task force.
Meeting adjourned at 11:15 pm
LCR.2b-3