A tale of two brands
By Bill Davis, senior editor | The state of South Carolina spends $5 million to $7 million annually to boost tourism, a juggernaut of an industry that pumps $18 billion annually into its economy. But on the whole, thanks to promotional investment by regions, more than $50 million is spent advertising South Carolina’s brand.
Contrast that with Michigan, which has set aside $33 million in state money in its Pure Michigan ad campaign, which welcomes close to $22 billion in visitor and business travel dollars.
Not bad, on its face, considering that Michigan has more than two times the number of residents as South Carolina’s 4.8 million residents. But some wonder what would happen if the state did more.
South Carolina tourism
The Palmetto State welcomes $18 billion annually in tourist dollars, with nearly two-thirds of that coming from the coast stretch of the state from Myrtle Beach to Charleston to Hilton Head, according to S.C. Parks, Recreation and Tourism executive director Duane Parrish.
Parrish’s agency helps stoke the fire with between $5 million to $7 million in state advertising money. Ad buys are mainly focused on “drive-in” markets like Atlanta, Richmond and Charlotte.
Eleven regions of the state partner with local businesses and private investment to further push their attractions and destinations.
Charleston, for example, spends about $14 million annually on advertising, according to Perrin Lawson of the Charleston Area Convention and Visitors Bureau. Brad Dean, the executive director of Myrtle Beach Area Chamber of Commerce, said his organization spends $28 million annually.
And perhaps not surprising, considering that while Michigan has access to some great lakes, literally, South Carolina has everything from the mountains to the beach – and no really cold wintry weather.
“We have a better product, we don’t have to spend so much to sell it,” said Parrish, with a laugh.
Michigan’s approach
But is South Carolina getting the biggest bang for its fractured buck? Could relying on the state to put more forward like Michigan has bring even more tourists, or as they are called in Charleston, visitors?
Watch national television in South Carolina for an hour or two and you’re bound to catch a 30-second spot for “Pure Michigan,” a nationally recognized tourism and economic development campaign.
Featuring comedian Tim Allen’s voice, the spots hype that state’s various beauties, from downtown Detroit to the Mackinac Bridge leading into its Upper Peninsula region.
This is Pure Michigan’s tenth year, and it has become nearly as ubiquitous as similar “Virginia is for Lovers” and “What Happens in Vegas …” campaigns.
Michelle Grinnell, a Pure Michigan spokesman who hails from Grand Rapids, said her state is getting a 7-to-1 return in tax dollars on its tourist advertisement investment.
But this isn’t a completely clean comparison, as Pure Michigan has 45 regional partners chipping in anywhere from $20,000 to $500,000 annually to augment its spending – those areas include Ann Arbor, Grand Rapids, Traverse City, and Detroit, which also self-promotes independently.
More funding could yield a bigger tourism bang
“I think the [SCPRT] has done a remarkable job and could certainly deliver more if given more funds,” said Dean, adding that the three coastal areas have flourished despite their proximity to each other.
Each of the three areas — Myrtle Beach, Charleston, and Hilton Head – attract distinct portions of the tourist market, without eating into each other’s customer base, according to Dean.
Parrish echoed Dean’s point, saying there have been more instances and opportunities to collaborate than to compete between the three coastal regions.
Dean argued that the down side to more state tourism dollars is less control on a local level, wherein what makes those locales special could get washed out with a broader stroke campaign.
State Rep. Alan Clemmons (R-Myrtle Beach) said there are major differences between Michigan’s tourism dollars and the Grand Strand. Michigan, he said, has no distinct tourist destinations, where 38 percent of tourists stopping off in his district are first-time visitors.
Clemmons said the South Carolina model, where regions partner with private dollars to advertise to tourists, is “one of the best in the nation, and one of the most quantifiably successful.
“That is due in large part to the matching partner dollars. That private buy-in should continue to be a hallmark of our state investment. I would suggest that, as long as increased state funding is supported by that private matching investment that more funding should be considered.”
State Sen. Greg Hembree (R-North Myrtle Beach) agreed with the need to include private local buy-ins and matching funds in whatever happens to the state’s tourism advertising structure going forward. “There’s a tipping point out there, I just don’t know where it is,” he said.
We Can Do Better, South Carolina!