IBJNews

Study finds $124M in visitor spending at fairgrounds

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana State Fairgrounds generated $124 million in visitor spending in 2011 and has an annual impact on the local economy similar to a factory employing 500 people, according to a study released Wednesday.

“There’s really nothing in Indiana that’s quite comparable to the state fairgrounds,” said study author Bruce Jaffee, Indiana University professor of business economics, in a prepared statement. “Its impact is different from something like the Super Bowl or a Final Four because it’s not a one-time occurrence.  It’s an economic engine generating spending, revenue and tax receipts year after year.”

In his study, Jaffee likened the fairgrounds to a manufacturing plant with 500 to 600 employees and per-employee revenue of $300,000 per year.

The latest study follows one in 2011 that found the Pepsi Coliseum at the fairgrounds generated $89.3 million in spending, with $73.3 million of that coming from out-of-town visitors. The 73-year-old coliseum accounts for 40 percent of the fairgrounds’ year-round operating revenue.

The Indiana State Fair Commission recently approved a plan to expand the coliseum’s seating from 8,000 to 9,000 by 2014. The renovation is slated to start this fall.

Now the commission is looking to draw attention to the fairgrounds for its year-round events.

“People know all about our wonderful fair, but hundreds of other year-round events draw millions of people to Indianapolis, and that results in an important economic boost to our area businesses and tax revenue,” Indiana State Fair Commission Chairman Andre Lacy said  in a prepared statement.

Jaffee took a conservative approach with the study by separating spending by visitor and local residents. The $124 million was spent by out-of-county visitors. Marion County residents spent another $34.4 million at the fairgrounds last year, he found. That money was likely to have been spent in Indianapolis anyway.

Jaffee did not calculate indirect spending by people who make money from the fairgrounds but said that could double the total impact.

The 17-day Indiana State Fair accounted for nearly 21 percent, or $26.2 million, of the fairgrounds-generated spending. That was up almost $7 million from 2001, the last time a study was conducted.

Fair attendees also generated more “balanced” spending, both inside and outside the fairgrounds, Jaffee noted. About three-quarters of the $124 million in visitor spending takes place inside the fairgrounds, the study said.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Must be a lot of swap meets down there
    Nuff said...
  • Shrffling Dollars
    Here is my thinking. Tourism is just shuffling dollars around and not creating much value. Yes, we love the fair and for that the sports in Indianapolis. But, this is not the same as good manufacturing or production jobs. These reports are self serving and the multipliers are always at the high end of reality.
  • No Accountability
    They forgot to subtract the $11 million expense for killing and injuring some of their guests.

    And don't forget the countless additional millions being spent on lawyers and meaningless engineering/procedural studies trying to shift blame onto the victims and others.

    Coming up on one year anniversary with no changes in State Fair leadership.
  • Hope they didn't spend much for this study
    Wow, another inflated economic impact study telling us how important they are.

    Just waiting for them to start asking for money.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT