Pure Michigan Returns 2 cents per dollar spent...

[audiophile]

http://www.mackinac.org/22920

[TC Talks]

Maybe to some communities, but Northern Michigan is having a renaissance because of Pure Michigan. Mackinaw Policy Center are a collection of dim bulbs so I wouldn't put much faith in their findings.

[Deleted User 9015]

This is interesting. The problem is based off research from decades ago and supported by a paper from 2011. The paper from 2011 by Deskin and Seevers identifies significant benefits of tourism spending in cases where a state has a low level of spending, however, benefits become insignificant at higher levels of spending. The implication of this is that for a state to be competitive, they need to spend up to a certain point, but after that point, the benefits of spending diminish.

This implication is not acknowledged in the results of the study. They only discuss an increase in spending from one year to the next and the corresponding increase in tourism income for the state. They give $4 million as the increase in spending and $80k as the increase in income, concluding a benefit of 2 cents for the state. They do not look at the totality of spending on tourism or "Pure Michigan" and the benefits of the program.

What I do not get is how their methods of analysis run 100% counter to the literature they cite. The literature notes that at a certain level of spending that the benefits will become insignificant, however, they only measure for additional spending and the corresponding benefit of it. Also, they do not take into account the hygienic nature of advertisement spending. What I mean is that the base amount of state spending which significantly drives tourism, as noted in the Deskin and Seevers study, is not considered in the analysis (at least as far as you can see from the very few numbers given).

Another thing is that they limited their research so that restaurant and retail spending was not taken into consideration because locals use these services as well. Overall, I would like a greater explanation by the researchers regarding why they did not look for a "breaking point" where spending becomes an insignificant factor, apply moderation at that point, and determine the benefit of spending at that point. That would go a longer way in supporting policy because it could lead to an understanding of what level of spending is appropriate. Just measuring the mayo on the turkey sammich and saying that its evidence that turkey sammiches are bad for you is bad research.

[jry]

But it's Tim Allen, for petes sake.... Who doesn't like Tim Allen?