Content uploaded by Sandra Grunwell
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sandra Grunwell on Oct 03, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Event Management, Vol. 11, pp. 00–00 1525-9951/08 $60.00 + .00
Printed in the USA. All rights reserved. Copyright © 2008 Cognizant Comm. Corp.
www.cognizantcommunication.com
1
Address correspondence to Sandra Grunwell, Hospitality and Tourism Management, Department of Business Administration and Law, Western
Carolina University, Cullowhee, NC 28723, USA. Tel: (828) 227-2154; Fax: (828) 227-7417; E-mail: grunwell@wcu.edu
FILM FESTIVALS: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF FACTORS FOR SUCCESS
SANDRA GRUNWELL and INHYUCK “STEVE” HA
Hospitality and Tourism Management, Western Carolina University, Cullowhee, NC, USA
Film festivals have become an increasingly popular method of generating economic bene t to communi-
ties, yet there is little mention of this festival segment in the academic literature. Seen as a meeting place
between lmmakers, distributors, and viewers, lm festivals can be an important factor in enlivening local
cultural life, building a town, city, or region’s image, and fostering its attractiveness for tourism and thus its
economic development. In addition to providing a cultural experience for the local community, and provid-
ing economic bene ts as a tourist draw, lm festivals provide a service to the lm industry by supplying a
forum for lmmakers to show their lms and lm buyers and distributors to view them. This article reports
on a study of lm festival attendees that was undertaken to evaluate the success of a regional lm festival and
assist lm festival managers and sponsors in future planning. Attendee characteristics and festival experience
were evaluated, as well the festival’s economic impact on the local community. The article also provides an
overview of unique characteristics of the lm festival industry.
Key words: Film festival; Economic impact
of a questionnaire administered to lm festival attendees
at the Asheville Film Festival in North Carolina. Speci c
objectives of the study included (1) determining the
personal characteristics of lm festival attendees, (2)
analyzing the economic impact of the lm festival, (3)
evaluating the attendees’ festival experience, and (4)
examining attendee suggestions for change for future
lm festivals.
Film Festival Characteristics
There are a number of factors that make lm festivals
unique. Film festivals have a number of constituents to
satisfy, including lm buffs, lm students, lmmakers,
lm buyers, and lm distributors. They often include
technical exhibits, educational seminars and workshops
Introduction
Film festivals have become major contributors to a
number of local economies. Increasingly cities across
the US and abroad are planning lm festivals as a tour-
ist draw and economic driver. Recognized by business,
community, and government agencies as a means of
promoting tourism and enhancing an area’s cultural
and economic well-being, there is need to assess their
impact and develop strategies to ensure their success.
It is estimated there are about 1,900 lm festivals held
annually worldwide with over 650 of those in the US
(Chatelin, 2004; Gore, 2004).
The purpose of the study was to address the impor-
tance of lm festivals as an economic development tool
in a local economy. The study was based on the results
2 GRUNWELL AND HA
for those interested in pursuing a lmmaking career.
Film festivals are often held during slow tourist times
of the year. They typically have low impact on a city
compared to street festivals in terms of such factors as
traf c, security, cleanup, etc. (Zate, 2005).
For a lmmaker, the key to success is exposure.
To assist in getting exposure lmmakers often turn to
agencies, which provide marketing and communication
services that put the lmmaker in contact with lm
festival organizers and industry professionals. Selecting
the festival to submit a lm to is an important decision.
What a lmmaker looks for in a lm festival is reputa-
tion, press coverage, awards, the opportunity to make
contacts, have their lm seen by lm distributors, and
to secure distribution (e.g., Film Festivals Pro, www.
lmfestialspro.com). One of the most exible ways
for an independent lmmaker to disseminate a lm
is through independent lm distribution because this
industry operates outside the constraints of Hollywood
and the lm festival market is the ideal environment for
these two entities to do business.
Film festivals worldwide compete for lmmakers,
lm distributors, and attendees. Therefore, for a lm
festival to be successful it is important to establish a
presence in the lm industry and develop a strategic
niche that sets it apart from others. “One way a lm
festival can attract excellent lmmakers is to offer
greater access to distributors who are suited to the lms
being shown” (Festival Management, 2006). A success-
ful strategy also “incorporates the interests of the host
community and is an excellent opportunity to heighten
tourism interest as well as lm production for the area”
(Festival Management, 2006).
Dale Pollock, Dean of the School of Filmmaking
at the North Carolina School of the Arts, has stated,
“giving lmmakers a good experience is the toughest
element. They all talk to each other and meet each other
at other festivals. If you don’t have good word of mouth
in this crowd, you don’t succeed” (Krishnan, 2004, p.
1). Quality programming is also very important and
includes such considerations as selection of the lms
to be shown, genres to be included, and scheduling of
the lm screenings. Another important element “is the
total experience, including hospitality, food service, and
the friendliness of local people” (Krishnan, 2004, p. 1).
Other considerations are a destination that one can sell
to journalists and sponsors, a location easily accessible
with enough lodging facilities, special events that create
a draw, effective marketing and public relations, quality
venues with state-of-the-art projection facilities, and
additional facilities for after lm events, educational
seminars, workshops, and technical exhibits.
Film festivals vary greatly in size. Large lm festivals
can gather up to 350,000 spectators (Chatelin, 2004),
such as the international Cannes Film Festival in France
with an estimated economic impact of $97 million (The
Economist, 1998) and the Toronto International Film
Festival which draws 250,000 attendees with an annual
economic impact of $67 million and $33 million in
tourism alone (TIFFG, 2004). Medium size festivals
draw 30,000 to 50,000 visitors (Chatelin, 2004), such as
Sundance in Utah which reports an economic impact of
$43 million (Oberbeck, 2005). Yet much of the growth
in lm festivals has been with smaller festivals that
have created market niches for themselves, such as the
Asheville Film Festival.
Literature Review
Film festivals are seen as part of the nonpro t arts
industry contributing both cultural and economic
benefits. An economic impact study conducted by
Americans for the Arts in 2000 revealed the nonpro t
arts industry and their audiences generated $134 billion
in total economic activity. When local communities
and governments invest in the arts they are “not only
enhancing quality of life, but are also investing in (a
community’s) economic well being” (Americans for the
Arts, 2003, p. iii). Asheville, located in Western North
Carolina, was one of 91 communities that participated
in this study. Findings revealed the nonpro t arts had
a signi cant impact on Asheville’s economic activity,
generating $61 million. Spending by the nonpro t arts
organizations ($14.7 million) and event-related spend-
ing by the audiences ($46.3 million) supported 2,100
full-time jobs, generated $37.6 million in household
income to local residents, and delivered $5.6 million
in local and state government revenue (Americans for
the Arts, 2003).
Frey (1994, 2000), who has written extensively on
economics and the arts, related the rise in the number
of arts festivals to a common set of factors based on
an economic analysis. On the demand side, factors
Frey identi ed were rising interests in cultural events;
opening up art events to those previously not patrons;
catering to specialized cultural tastes and exploiting
niches of demand; increasing promotion capabilities due
to the growth of electronic and print media; lowering of
FILM FESTIVAL SUCCESS FACTORS 3
consumption costs due to an ef cient combination of art
with tourism; potential to increase revenues by charging
higher entrance prices because of the low price elasticity
of demand due to tourists; and the increasing awareness
by local business that festivals can be commercially
exploited. On the supply side, factors Frey identi ed
were staging events at nontraditional venues; providing
a larger scope of artistic creativity; avoiding government
and trade union restrictions; increasing the role of cor-
porate sponsoring; and overcoming the ossi cation of
established art institutions by favoring cultural events
that receive outside attention and publicity.
Mitchell (1993) examined the economic impact
of nine professional summer theater arts festivals on
Ontario communities. Data were obtained from theater
arts administrators, visitors, and merchants. Findings
suggested that the summer theater festivals contributed
to the economic well-being of the communities with
greater economic bene ts obtained by festivals that
attracted larger nonlocal markets and were in communi-
ties with more business offerings in the retail and service
sector. The average percentage of visitors to the festivals
was 77.9%, average visitor expenditure $678,605, and
the average theater company expenditure was $508,350.
It was noted that differences in the characteristics of host
communities, coupled with variations in size, compo-
sition, and af uence of audiences, as well as age and
annual expenditures of the theater companies, impacted
the economic outcome of the festivals.
Maughan and Bianchini (2004) conducted a compre-
hensive study of 11 arts festivals in the East Midlands
area for the Arts Council of England. Questionnaires
were administered to attendees, local businesses, and
arts organizations to assess audience characteristics,
economic and social impacts of the festivals, and iden-
tify factors that would encourage sustainable growth
of the Midlands festival network. The study included
pro les of festival audiences in aggregate terms, as
well as feedback from stakeholders and organizers.
For the 11 festivals, the adjusted economic impact of
audience expenditures was £289,739 with 292 full-time
job equivalents and total income of nearly £1 million.
Ninety-three percent of businesses saw the arts festi-
vals as good for the local communities and 64% of the
festival attendees felt the festivals enhanced the local
image and identity.
Quinn (2006) undertook a qualitative study of two
long-standing arts festivals in Ireland that had reached
international status; one the Wexford Festival Opera,
the other the Galway Arts Festival. Both festivals were
seen as major tourist attractions, enhancing their ability
to attract corporate sponsors. Each made contributions
to the arts and experienced growth and sustainability
over their years in existence due to their tourist draw;
however, they had problems with the quality of their
relationships with local residents. Resident surveys
revealed festival organizers had become out of touch
with the community in which they existed. Quinn noted
“the development of an external orientation can threaten
the relationship forged between local populations and
their festivals” (p. xxx). To prevent a festival from los-
ing its perspective due to too much, too rapid growth,
“a festival organization must focus on its initial aims,
remembering whom it wants to reach and what it wants
to achieve with the festival” (p. xxx).
Evans and Dave (2006) conducted a North Carolina
statewide study on the economic impact of cultural
tourism. The study was designed to include the entire
arts spectrum and as such attempted to collect data from
art museums, performing arts events, arts/craft festivals,
lm festivals, music festivals and outdoor drama. The
study included both rural and urban events. Fifteen
arts organizations agreed to distribute questionnaires
to their patron audiences. Data were collected over a
1-year period. Findings related to festivals revealed
that although the two types of festivals that attracted
the most tourists were urban crafts and rural music
festivals, average tourist expenditures were highest
for music festivals ($250 per person) and lm festivals
($150 per person).
Martin, Bridges, and Grunwell (2006) conducted a
comparison study of attendees at two summer music
festivals (one jazz, the other country rock) in a rural
university setting in North Carolina, each in their rst
year of operation. Survey ndings revealed differences
in demographics, attendance, spending, and overnight
stays between the two festivals. The jazz festival at-
tendees were fewer in number (750), older, had higher
incomes, were more apt to stay in hotels, and spent
more ($236 on average), whereas the country rock
festival attracted signi cantly more attendees (5,000)
who were younger, more apt to stay with friends and
relatives, and spent less ($146 on average). Implications
for music festival planners were visitor pro les may
differ signi cantly with different music genre, which
can affect such factors as attendance and spending,
suggesting the need to decide what outcomes are most
important for long-term sustainability.
4 GRUNWELL AND HA
Grunwell, Ha, & Martin (2008) compared two urban
festivals in North Carolina: one a large-scale street
festival, the other a lm festival. Findings revealed
lm festival attendees were older (44 vs. 37), more
educated (college graduates 82% vs. 63%), spent more
$305 vs. $181), tended to have higher incomes ($71,262
vs. $65,718), and had a greater economic impact per
person ($164 vs. $107). As with Martin’s study, the
bene ts of comparison studies within the same city is
that it gives festival organizers and tourism planners an
opportunity to compare costs and bene ts to their com-
munity. Although the overall impact of the street festival
was greater, so were the social and environmental costs
associated with such a large festival.
Although there were a number of studies on the social
and economic impact of art festivals, an in-depth review
of academic journals in the arts, festivals and events,
hospitality and tourism, and economics revealed little
mention of lm festivals. Success in contacting major
lm festival organizers to obtain reports of economic
impact studies was limited. Other than news releases,
the information was typically not made available to
the pubic. Annual reports tended to be general in their
coverage of festival outcomes, presenting only positive
aspects of the lm festival.
One lm festival study made available for review that
was conducted by the University of California, Santa
Barbara, for the Santa Barbara International Film Fes-
tival organizers, provided an analysis of the festival’s
impact on the local economy. As stated in the executive
report, it was “a study of the positive economic impacts
of the event. No attempt was made to estimate the costs
associated with the event” (UCSB Economic Forecast
Project, 2005, p. i), nor was there any mention of recom-
mendations for improvement for future festivals. Data
for the study were obtained from ticket sales and an
attendee survey conducted during the festival. Results
of the study revealed 80% of the attendees came from
outside the Santa Barbara County and 41% had incomes
over $100,000. IMPLAN Pro was used to assess at-
tendee spending impact on the local economy resulting
in a mean estimated total impact to gross county output
at $7.3 million and a mean estimated total impact to
employment at 108.
Contact with lm festival agencies in the US did not
reveal any industry-wide study of lm festivals. How-
ever, one large-scale study sponsored by the European
Coordination of Film Festivals provided detailed infor-
mation of the social and economic impact of lm fes-
tivals on European communities. The study addressed
the impact 64 lm festivals had on the public, the lm
industry, and the promotion and circulation of the
European lm culture. It included in-depth interviews
with festival members, acquisition of programming and
nancial documentation, surveys, and an impact study
using IMPLAN Pro covering a 3-year period. Findings
revealed the lm festivals played an important role in
increasing the number of European lms shown, the
marketing of lms to distributors, the number of lms
that found a purchaser, and the number of spectators
attracted. The direct economic impact of the European
lm festivals on the towns, cities, or regions in which
they took place was felt to be signi cant. On average,
ve full-time job equivalents were created, 75–80%
of the budgets were spent locally, and contributions to
hotel use averaged 500 rooms per festival. Although the
impact on local businesses was not deemed quanti able,
it was generally recognized as positive.
The long-term impact of the lm festivals on Euro-
pean communities was also viewed as positive when
compared to the size of their budgets. More than half of
the lm festivals took place in small and medium-sized
towns, over one third in economically underdeveloped
regions. The festivals were seen as a useful strategy in
building a city’s image and fostering its attractiveness
and thus its economic development. The lm festivals
were also felt to have a notable social impact in that they
disseminated cultural expression, provided educational
and training opportunities, often created a focus on
minority or underprivileged segments of society, and
for those in rural areas in a state of decline, combated
disintegration of the social fabric (European Coordina-
tion of Film Festivals, 1999).
There have been a number of articles written on
conducting economic impact studies for festivals and
events (Crompton, 1995, 1999; Crompton, Lee, & Shus-
ter, 2001; Felsenstein & Fleischer, 2003; Frechtling &
Horvath, 1999; Snowball, 2004; Snowball & Antrobus,
2002; Tyrrell & Ismail, 2005; Tyrrell & Johnston, 2001).
Discussions have included measures that can be taken
when obtaining and interpreting results to achieve better
accuracy and to remain objective. These have included
the importance of accuracy in estimating such factors
as attendance, proportion of attendees from outside the
study area, event-related spending and employment
measures; excluding local residents, time switchers
(those planning to visit an area, but switched the time
to coincide with the event) and casuals (those already
FILM FESTIVAL SUCCESS FACTORS 5
visiting the area who decide to attend the event); de-
termining the size of the multiplier; and using income
rather than sales measures.
Importance of the Film Industry to North Carolina
With its diverse lming locations North Carolina
has hosted over 800 motion pictures, 14 network and
cable television series, and countless television com-
mercials generating more than $7 billion in revenues
for local economies since 1980 (North Carolina Film
Of ce, 2007). According to the North Carolina Film
Of ce (2006), “North Carolina ranks third nationally,
after California and New York, in revenues from lm,
television and commercial production and has held this
position for the past 20 years.” The state’s lm industry
is noted for its infrastructure supporting lmmaking,
which includes a crew base of 2,000 lm professionals,
8 full-service studio complexes, 32 soundstages, 400
support service companies, 4 regional commissions, and
the School of Filmmaking at the NC School of the Arts.
The industry is also supported by the North Carolina
Film Council, appointed by the governor, to assist the
North Carolina Film Of ce in industry-related mat-
ters, and the NC Division of Tourism, Film and Sports,
which has a website to assist lmmakers in identifying
potential lming locations within the state.
The growth in lm festivals statewide re ects the
state’s commitment to its lm industry. Film festivals
in North Carolina include the internationally acclaimed
Full Frame Documentary Film Festival in Durham, The
RiverRun Festival in Winston-Salem, The Cucalorus
Film Festival in Wilmington, The Asheville Film Fes-
tival, and a number of smaller lm festivals. Western
North Carolina, which includes Asheville, has a rich
history of lm. Since 1921 more than 40 feature lms
have been shot in Western North Carolina and since
1995 the lm industry has spent $38 million in the area
(Clark, 2003). Such big name lms as Bull Durham,
Dirty Dancing, Forrest Gump, The Fugitive, The Green
Mile, Hannibal, The Hunt for Red October, Last of the
Mohicans, Patch Adams, and 28 Days have been lmed
in Western North Carolina.
Background of the Study
The Asheville Film Festival study was undertaken
upon request from the City of Asheville’s Cultural Arts
Division’s Film Festival Committee. Held in early No-
vember, the festival helps bring tourists to the Western
North Carolina area during what is normally a slow time
of the year, between the leaf season and the holidays. It
is a 4-day independent lm festival celebrating West-
ern North Carolina as a strong lming location, while
showcasing the area’s talent and resources. As cited by
Marla Tambellini, marketing director for the Asheville
Convention and Visitors Bureau, the purpose of the
Asheville Film Festival is to “lure both tourism and jobs
to the state . . . keep local crews employed . . . (provide an)
avenue to support local lmmakers . . . (and) gain aware-
ness as a lm destination” (Dyer, 2004, p. 1).
In its second year of operation at the time of the
study with 8,800 attendees, the festival had begun
to acquire national recognition as an up-and-coming
festival to be watched by the lm industry. The festival
included screenings of feature lms, documentary lms,
educational lms, short lms, and student lms. Four
theater venues in close proximity to one another were
utilized for the screenings. Of the 96 lms screened at
the lm festival, 16 were made in North Carolina. In
addition to lm screenings, the festival included stu-
dent competitions, industry seminars, workshops and
technical exhibits, location tours of Asheville studios,
and gala events including lm awards. Hollywood
celebrity and actress Andie MacDowell, a resident of
Western North Carolina, was promoted as the festival’s
Honorary Chair.
Twenty- ve area businesses sponsored the event. In
addition, the City of Asheville provided $120,000 in
nancial support and the County Tourism Development
Authority provided $20,000 from hotel/motel taxes
to advertise the festival outside the Asheville market.
The event was marketed through magazine, newspaper,
radio, and Internet advertisements, as well as publicity
news stories. Tickets were required for lm screenings
and the gala events. There were 10 ticket options and
attendees could purchase tickets online, over the phone,
through the mail, or at the festival.
Methodology
A 22-question audience questionnaire was developed
incorporating demographic, economic and festival re-
lated questions. Questionnaires were given to attendees
as they entered the four lm venues and collected when
they exited. To encourage participation in completing
the questionnaire, respondents were given the opportu-
nity to enter a drawing for complimentary tickets to the
closing night reception. Data was collected over a six
6 GRUNWELL AND HA
hour period, including afternoon and evening showings
to capture differences in spending and visitation pat-
terns. In total 635 attendees completed surveys during
eight lm time slots.
The amount of regional output attributable to the
Asheville Film Festival attendees was determined
through the IMPLAN Pro (Minnesota IMPLAN
Group, 2000) software. The IMPLAN Pro software is
an economic development tool that applies multipliers
and performs an input-output analysis to estimate the
economic impact of spending in a local community or
region. Many economic impact studies use IMPLAN
Pro as a major analysis tool (Arik & Nsiah, 2004;
Baker et al., 2000; Rishe, 2000). The IMPLAN Pro
results consist of three components: direct, indirect, and
induced effects. In order to capture the leakage to the
outside of the region in expenditures on retail goods,
the built-in Regional Purchase Coef cients in IMPLAN
were used. One can override these coef cients when
the survey-based information is available about the
regional economic structure, which was not the case
in this study.
Direct dollars for goods and services spent by
visitors are estimated by the surveys. Direct effects
are then traced by an input–output analysis to detect
secondary impact dollar spending. Secondary im-
pact dollars accumulate as a result of both indirect
and induced effects. Indirect effects are secondary
impacts that result from businesses that make ex-
penditures in order to replenish goods and improve
services that have been purchased by direct impact
expenditures. Induced effects are secondary impacts
resulting from an increase in household spending by
employees who are hired, or current employees paid
to work longer hours, to provide goods and services
being purchased.
Visitors (%)
0.2 - 0.3
0.3 - 0.5
0.5 - 0.5
0.5 - 1.0
1.0 - 4.8
4.8 - 82.5
Figure 1. Asheville lm festival attendees by state.
FILM FESTIVAL SUCCESS FACTORS 7
Results
Attendee Characteristics
For the second year since its inception, the lm festi-
val was successful in attracting visitors to the Asheville
area. Over 8,800 people attended the festival, a 10%
increase over the previous year. Although the major-
ity of attendees were from North Carolina (82.5%),
all regions of the US were represented. Tennessee
residents constituted the greatest share of out-of-state
ticket buyers with almost 5% of ticket purchases, fol-
lowed by South Carolina, which made 4.5% of ticket
purchases. As shown in Figure 1, people from at least
21 states attended events at Asheville Film Festival. Of
the 635 attendees surveyed, 74% were day-trippers of
which 56.0% were local residents residing in the host
county.
The average age of attendees was 43.9 years with
over one third (36%) between the ages of 50 and 64.
Nearly two thirds (62%) were females, 82% were
college graduates, 10% were students, and 15% were
retirees. Seventy-two percent of the attendees were
gainfully employed. Over two thirds had incomes
$40,000 and over, 21% had incomes over $100,000
with an average income of $71,262. The most frequent
travel group size was two people; only 6% traveled
with children.
It is often asked to determine if there is any signi cant
difference between day visitors and overnight visitors
in characteristics as well as spending patterns. Table 1
shows the mean difference test results for several key
variables from the surveys. Overnight visitors were
more likely to travel in a larger group, had a higher
percentage of rst-time visitors, and spent more dollars
during the visit.
Economic Impact
For over two thirds (75.3%) of the nonlocal attend-
ees, the lm festival was the main purpose of their trip
to the Asheville area. Festival bene ts to the Asheville
community included increased business activity, tax
dollars, sales of goods and services, and an opportunity
to promote regional tourism. Bene ciaries included
food and beverage outlets, retail stores, hotels, com-
mercial attractions, and the festival event. In order
to estimate visitors’ spending in the framework of
the economic impact analysis, some adjustment was
required due to missing cases. Only 60.9% (387 out of
635) of the respondents answered the spending-related
questions as shown in Table 2. Only 14.6% of the at-
tendees stayed at a hotel with an average stay of 2.8
nights and an average hotel expenditure of $73.23 per
person. The total average trip expenditure per person
was $133.35. However, total spending per person for
overnight visitors ($271.16) was over four times the
spending of day trippers ($61.13). Fifty-six percent
of attendees purchased food during the lm festival,
spending an average of $41.82 per person and 25%
purchased retail goods spending an average of $37.09
per person. The average expenditure on festival activi-
ties was $21.51. When comparing overnight visitors to
day-trippers, overnight visitors spent 2.5 times more
on food, 4.7 times more on retail goods, and twice as
much on festival activities.
The results from the IMPLAN input–output analysis
are shown in Table 3. Both output and employment
impacts are revealed; direct, indirect, induced, and total
effects are shown. The estimated direct expenditures in
the region created by the lm festival were $1,018,313.
The indirect effects were $174,312 and the induced ef-
fects from household spending $252,462 for an overall
Table 1
Mean Differences: Day-Trippers Versus Overnight Visitors
Day-Trippers Overnight Visitors
Mean N Mean N t-Stat.
Size of travel group 2.3 467 3.1 164 –4.89*
First-time visit to Asheville Film Festival 0.7 460 0.9 163 –5.69*
Experience of other lm festival 0.4 458 0.5 162 –2.51*
Likelihood of revisit next year 1.0 451 0.9 150 2.69*
Total spending per person per day 61.1 254 112.4 133 –3.58*
Overall rate of enjoyment (1–5 scale) 4.4 398 4.4 138 –0.22
Source: Asheville Film Festival 2004 visitor survey.
*Statistically signi cant at 95%.
8 GRUNWELL AND HA
effect of $1,445,087, which accounts for about 0.44%
of the county’s retail sales.
Direct employment creation from the lm festival
visitors was 20.6 jobs. Indirect and induced job creation
was 1.8 and 3 jobs, respectively, for an overall expansion
in employment of 25.4 jobs.
Festival Experience
When asked how the attendees heard about the festi-
val, nearly half (48.8%) checked newspaper/magazine
advertisement; 40.2% heard about the festival through
friends or word of mouth. When asked what type of
ticket(s) they purchased, 59.2% purchased individual
passes; the rest purchased some type of package. Nearly
two thirds (64.4%) purchased tickets at the festival
(walk-up); Internet was the next most frequently men-
tioned means of acquiring tickets (20.0%). It must be
noted that for each of the aforementioned questions,
respondents could check more than one answer.
For most attendees (70.5%) this was their first
Asheville lm festival and 59.0% said it was their rst
lm festival ever. Nearly all (97%) said the lm festival
met or exceeded their expectations and 98% said they
planned to return next year. Types of lms viewers were
most interested in were feature lms (46.3%), documen-
tary lms (32.2%), and short lms (20.9%). Twenty-one
percent had no preference and only 8.1% were interested
in student lms. Overall enjoyment rating of the lm
festival by attendees was 4.4 on a 5-point scale.
When respondents were given the opportunity
in an open-ended question to suggest changes they
would like to see for next year’s festival, over 300
responses were given. Responses were grouped into
four categories: ticket suggestions, lm suggestions,
marketing suggestions, and others. Regarding tickets,
attendees wanted more buying options, the ability to
purchase tickets at each venue, and more tickets over-
all. Film-related issues received the most comments.
These included more variety of lms, more local lms,
more showings of each lm, more lm festival days,
more venues, more lms overall, showing short lms
together, better system for announcing sold-out lms,
more time between showings, more knowledgeable
lm technicians, better lm equipment, projectors
rather than DVDs for better quality, and working out
technical dif culties ahead of time. Suggested mar-
keting changes included making the program guide
more user-friendly, more advanced advertising, more
clarity on lm groups, less commercials, better festival
merchandise, and a more informative and user-friendly
website. Other changes attendees wanted were more
value for the money, more interaction and time with
lmmakers, more seminars, workshops, and exhibits,
more availability of food at venues, more and better
trained staff/volunteers, more organization, and better
hotel packages.
Table 3
Economic Impact of Attendees
Direct effect $1,018,313 20.6
Indirect effect $174,312 1.8
Induced effect $252,462 3.0
Total effect $1,445,087 25.4
Source: IMPLAN analysis.
Table 2
Visitor Spending Patterns and Total Spending
Overall Mean Day-Trippers Overnight Visitors
(N = 387) Mean (N = 254) Mean (N = 133)
Spending on food per person $41.82 $27.52 $69.37
Spending on lodging per person $25.40 $0.00 $73.23
Spending on shopping per person $37.09 $16.43 $76.78
Spending on festival activities per person $21.51 $16.41 $31.30
Spending on attractions per person $1.27 $0.09 $3.52
Spending on other per person $6.26 $0.68 $16.97
Total spending per person $133.35 $61.13 $271.16
Total spending per person per day $78.59 $61.13 $112.97
Total spending
a
$1,018,313 $398,160 $620,153
Source: Asheville Film Festival 2004 visitor survey. Total attendance estimated: overall 8,800
(100%), day-trippers 6,513 (74%), and overnight visitors 2,287 (26%).
a
Total overall spending is the sum of spending of both day-trippers and overnight visitors.
FILM FESTIVAL SUCCESS FACTORS 9
Discussion and Conclusions
This study analyzed the economic impact of the
Asheville Film Festival on the local economy. Attendee
characteristics, festival experience, and suggestions for
improvement were also analyzed. Demographic nd-
ings revealed lm festival attendees were older, well
educated, had above average incomes, and spent more
as noted by others who have studied art festivals (Evans
& Dave, 2005; Grunwell et al., 2008; Martin, Bridges,
& Grunwell, 2006; Mueller, 2007). As expected, over-
night visitors spent more than day-trippers. Because the
majority of lm festival attendees were day-trippers, the
overall impact of tourism dollars pouring into the local
economy from this event was limited to select tourism
segments. As with Mitchell’s (1993) study, those busi-
ness segments that bene ted most were restaurants,
retail stores, and the festival itself. Those that bene ted
least were hotels and tourist attractions. As noted by
Snowball (2004), festivals located near larger cities
are more likely to attract day-trippers and shorter stay
visitors than festivals in more isolated areas. However,
as the festival continues to grow and increase in national
recognition within the lm industry, one would expect
the number of overnighters also to increase.
In its second year of operation, attendance at the
lm festival increased 10% over the rst year to 8,800
attendees. For the majority of the attendees the lm fes-
tival was the main purpose of their trip to the Asheville
area. Findings suggested overall respondents enjoyed
the lm festival and nearly all said they would return
next year. However, it is noteworthy that less than one
third of rst year’s attendees returned the second year,
with the majority of the second year’s attendees at-
tending the Asheville Film Festival for the rst time.
Although attendance numbers appear to have held
their own, this could suggest dissatisfaction with the
rst year’s festival.
For a lm festival in its infancy stages there is much
opportunity for growth and improvement. Therefore, it
is important for festival managers to obtain feedback
from a number of key sources to insure the festival’s
future success (European Coordination of Film Festi-
vals, 1999; Grunwell et al., 2008; Maughn & Bianchini,
2004; Mueller, 2007). In this study valuable information
for improving the festival surfaced through attendee
responses to open-ended questions. Because one of the
major complaints by attendees was too many lms were
sold out, suggestions for more venues, larger venues,
more days, more lms, and multiple lm showings
should be taken into consideration for future festivals.
Other critical areas mentioned by attendees that need
to be addressed were quality issues related to technical
equipment, technicians, and festival staff; user-friendly
considerations regarding website, program guide, and
ticket purchasing; educational opportunities to learn
about the lmmaking industry; and overall value for
the money regarding lm scheduling, entertainment,
and hotel packages. Addressing these operational
issues, should enhance festival quality and attendee
satisfaction, ensuring a higher rate of return of current
festival attendees and continued growth in future years.
In addition to analyzing attendee recommendations for
future lm festivals, studying best practices of other suc-
cessful lm festivals and soliciting feedback from staff,
volunteers, lm producers, and lm distributors would
prove valuable. Also, evaluation of marketing efforts
needs to be linked to ongoing audience research.
Film festivals, large and small, compete for lm-
makers, lm distributors, and lm goers. Therefore, to
enhance the economic impact of future lm festivals, it
is important for the Asheville Film Festival to establish
a presence in the lm industry and develop a strategic
market niche that sets it apart from others (Festival
Management, 2006; Frey, 2000), thereby making it
more attractive to the various lm festival constituents
on a broader scope. As the lm festival continues to
increase in national recognition, one would expect to
see a higher in ux of outside visitors—both tourists and
lm professionals—resulting in greater spending and
overall economic impact. However, as Quinn (2006)
pointed out, as festivals increase tourist draw outside
the local area, they need to also ensure preservation of
their relationship with the local community as well.
Festivals and events are among the fastest growing
segments of the tourism industry. They can be used to
boost tourism both in and off season and are a power-
ful means of attracting tourists, creating awareness of
an area and developing a sense of community. As the
Asheville Film Festival continues to develop and expand
its offerings, it has the capability of producing signi -
cant economic and tourism bene ts for the area.
References
Americans for the Arts. (2003). Arts & economic prosperity: The
economic impact of nonpro t arts organizations and their
audiences. Washington, DC: Author.
10 GRUNWELL AND HA
Arik, M., & Nsiah, C. (2004). Measuring the economic impact of
Middle Tennessee State University. Murfreesboro, TN: Middle
Tennessee State University.
Baker, D., et al. (2000). Economic impact study 1998–99—
Portland State University. Portland, OR: Portland State
University.
Chatelin, B. (2004). Film festivals: Too many of them? Retrieved
from http://www.filmfestivals.com/cgi-bin/shownews.
pl?obj=ShowNews&CfgPath=ffs/filinfo&Cfg=news.
cfg&news=tv&text_id=25390
Clark, P. (2003, November 5). Film festival casts spotlight on
Asheville. Asheville Citizen-Times, p. 1.
Crompton, J. (1995). Economic impact analysis of sports facili-
ties and events: Eleven sources of misapplication. Journal of
Sports Management, 9(1), 14–35.
Crompton, J., Lee, S., & Shuster, T. (2001). A guide for undertak-
ing economic impact studies: The Springfest example. Journal
of Travel Research, 40, 79–97.
Dyer, L. (2004, November 5). Film festival in Asheville aims
to lure jobs back to North Carolina. Knight Ridder Tribune
Business News, p. 1.
European Coordination of Film Festivals. (1999). The socio-eco-
nomic impact of lm festivals in Europe. Belgium: European
Coordination of Film Festivals.
Evans, M., & Dave, D. (2005). The economic impact of cultural
tourism in North Carolina. Frontiers in Southeast CHRIE
Hospitality and Tourism Research, 9(1), 35–38.
Fedsenstein, D., & Fleischer, A. (2003). Local festivals and
tourism promotion: The role of public assistance and visitor
expenditure. Journal of Travel Research, 41(4), 385–392.
Festival Management. (2006). www.festivalmanagementinc.
com
Film Festivals Pro. (2006). www. lmfestivalpro.com
Frey, B. (1994). The economics of music festivals. Journal of
Cultural Economics, 18(1), 29–39.
Frey, B. S. (2000). Arts & economics: Analysis & cultural policy.
Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Frechtling, D., & Horvath, E. (1999). Estimating the multiplier
effects of tourism expenditures on a local economy through
a regional input-output model. Journal of Travel Research,
37(4), 324–332.
Gore, C. (2004). The ultimate lm festival survival guide (3rd ed.).
Los Angeles, CA: Lone Eagle Publishing Company.
Grunwell, S., Ha, I., & Martin, B. (2008). A comparative analysis
of attendee pro les at two urban festivals. Journal of Conven-
tion and Event Tourism, 9(1).
Krishnan, A. (2004, April 1). Durham, N.C. Documentary lm
festival rises in stature in industry. Knight Ridder Tribune
Business News, p. 1.
Martin, B., Bridges, W., & Grunwell, S. (2006). A comparison
of two music festivals: Implications for festival managers
and planners. Hospitality, Tourism, Leisure Science Journal,
2, 1–9.
Maughn, C., & Bianchini, F. (2004). The economic and social
impact of cultural festivals in the East Midlands of England
nal report. Leicester: De Montfort University.
Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. (2000). IMPLAN professional
software 2.0; user guide, analysis guide, and data guide (2nd
ed.). Stillwater, MN: Author.
Mitchell, C. (1993). Economic impact of the arts: Theatre festivals
in small Ontario communities. Journal of Cultural Econom-
ics, 17(2), 55–67.
Mueller, C. (2007).
A research on lm festival tourism III. Re-
trieved from http://www. lmfestivals.com/cgi-bin/shownews.
pl?obj=ShowNews&CfgPath=ffs/filinfo&Cfg=news.
cfg&news=general&text_id=30502
North Carolina Film Of ce. (2006). www.nc lm.com
Quinn, B. (2006). Problematising ‘festival tourism’: Arts festivals
and sustainable development in Ireland. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 14(3), 288–306.
Rishe, P. (2000). The economic impact of Washington University
on the St. Louis metropolitan statistical area. St. Louis, MO:
Washington University.
USCB Economic Forecast Project. (2005). Report on the impacts
of the Santa Barbara International Film Festival on the re-
gional economy of the County of Santa Barbara, California.
Santa Barbara: University of California.
Snowball, J. (2004). Interpreting economic impact study results:
Spending patterns, visitor numbers and festival aims. South
African Journal of Economics, 72(5), 1075–1083.
Snowball, J., & Antrobus, G. (2002). Valuing the arts: Pitfalls
in economic impact studies of arts festivals. South African
Journal of Economics, 70(8), 1297–1319.
Tyrrell, B., & Ismail, J. (2005). A methodology for estimating
the attendance and economic impact of an open-gate festival.
Event Management, 9(3), 111–118.
Tyrrell, B., & Johnston, R. (2001). A framework for assessing
direct economic impacts of tourist events: Distinguishing
origins, destinations, and causes of expenditures. Journal of
Travel Research, 40(1), 94–100.
Zate, M. (2005, September 9). Film fest visitors spent $7.3 mil-
lion. Knight Ridder Tribune Business News, p. 1.
