Perth International Cabaret Festival (PICF) is a brand new addition to Perth's arts, culture and storytelling landscape; inspired by a vision to deliver a Festival of indulgence in all things cabaret. After establishing itself as a not-for-profit organisation in 2019, PICF premiered in 2021 and took place from 19 – 27 June. The Festival successfully supported a number of local and national artists, creating a dazzling and inspirational atmosphere at His Majesty's Theatre filled with humour and glamour.
Western Australia’s border restrictions due to Melbourne’s COVID-19 lockdown in May/June 2021 caused several late programming changes but despite this, the Festival was a great success. PICF delivered a high-quality program and provided vibrant entertainment while honouring a full range of cabaret styles and cultures.
PICF engaged Culture Counts to conduct an evaluation of the event by surveying members of the general public, participants, organisers of the event and sector peers. Surveys were delivered through online delivery links organised by Culture Counts and Perth Theatre Trust. In partnership with Culture Counts, this survey was designed and developed to evaluate the strategic goals and outcomes of PICF and its partners.
246 responses were collected from public attendees via online delivery links sent to the email addresses of ticket holders. 13 responses were captured from Festival participants, including performing artists.
Each survey contained a range of ‘dimension’ questions, asking members of the public and participants about their experience of the event. These dimensions have been developed and tested in collaboration with industry, practitioners and academics to measure the impact and value of arts and cultural events and activities.
Appropriate dimensions were chosen based on their alignment with PICF's strategic objectives.
| Domain | Dimension | Dimension Statement |
|---|---|---|
| Cultural | Meaning | It moved and inspired me |
| Content | It reflected a broad and inclusive range of voices | |
| Heritage | It made me feel connected to a shared history/culture | |
| Social | Access | It gave me the opportunity to access cultural activities |
| Connection | It helped me to feel connected to people in the community | |
| Economic | Networks | It connected me with other people in my field |
| Collaboration | It provided opportunities for collaboration | |
| Diversity | It engaged people from different backgrounds | |
| Quality | Presentation | It was well produced and presented |
| Excellence | It was one of the best examples of its type that I have seen | |
| Risk | The artists weren't afraid to try new things |
Dimensions are assessed on a Likert scale, in which respondents move a slider to a point that indicates whether they agree or disagree with the dimension statement. An example of a dimension question in the Culture Counts survey tool is presented below.
Cover page image: Gina Williams and Guy Ghouse - Koorlangka Reimagined
Cover page credit: Vanessa Cooper
Public respondents were asked to provide their age, gender and identity. This data identifies the demographic sample of people who responded to the survey and took part in the event. It enables data to be matched to the wider population and responses to be filtered to understand differences in demographics.
The following charts show the proportion of survey responses captured for each of the age, gender and identity demographic questions.
Just over half of the sample (52%) was over 60 years of age, followed by the 50-59 age group (30%). 13% of the sample was aged 40-49, 4% was aged 30-39 and less than 1% of the sample was aged 20-29. Almost two-thirds of respondents (65%) were female, with males making up 34% and those who preferred not to say or identified their gender in another way making up less than 1% of the sample each.
32% of the sample indicated that they were born overseas, 18% identified as LGBTIQ+ and 2% identified as Aboriginal / Torres Strait Islander. 2% of respondents reported being a carer for a person with disability, 2% identified as a person with disability and less than 1% reported that they mainly speak a language other than English at home.
Survey respondents were asked to provide their current living location and postcode. This data identifies the demographic sample of people who responded to the survey and took part in the event. It enables data to be matched to the wider population and responses to be filtered to understand differences in demographics.
The following charts show the proportion of survey responses captured for respondents' identified living location and top postcode results.
The vast majority (95%) of the sample reported living in the Perth Metro Area. 3% of the sample were from elsewhere in WA, 2% were from interstate and no respondents reported being from overseas.
Attendees travelled from all over Perth to attend the event. Subiaco was the most commonly cited postcode (5.7%), followed by Mount Lawley (4.3%), Perth (3.8%) and Claremont (3.8%).
Survey respondents moved a slider to indicate whether they agreed or disagreed with the included dimension statements in relation to the event. The following charts contain the response data for 'public' responses, showing the average result for each dimension.
The Culture Counts platform provides various methods to capture survey responses at minimal marginal cost. Achieving larger samples enables organisations to be more confident about the average results and that opinions of the survey respondents are representative of all attendees. The accompanying margin of error chart shows the expected differences for the associated dimension results calculated at a 95% confidence level.
All dimensions received an average agreement rate 77/100 or higher, a very positive result for the Festival.
'Presentation' (88/100) received the highest average dimension score overall, demonstrating that respondents were very positive and were most likely to agree that the event was well produced and presented. 'Meaning' (81/100) and 'Excellence' (79/100) also scored highly, demonstrating that public respondents were also likely to agree that the event they attended moved and inspired them and that it was one of the best examples of its type that they had seen.
'Content' (79/100), 'Diversity' (78/100) and 'Access' (78/100) also scored highly, demonstrating that public respondents were also highly likely to agree that the event they attended reflected a broad and inclusive range of voices, that it engaged people of different backgrounds and that it gave them the opportunity to access cultural activities.
While still positive results, 'Connection' (77/100) and 'Heritage' (77/100) received the lowest average agreement rates overall, indicating that respondents were slightly less likely to agree that the event they attended made them feel connected to people in the community and that it made them feel connected to a shared history/culture, when compared with the other dimension statements.
At a 95% confidence level, the margin of error for dimensions ranged from 1.7% to 2.7%. This means that we can be 95% confident that if we surveyed the entire visitor population, the average outcome for 'Presentation' would fall within 1.7% of the average generated by the sample.
Culture Counts uses a slider input to measure responses for dimension statements as part of the evaluation methodology. This method also provides the capability to understand response results within a typical 5-point agree-to-disagree format.
The following charts contain the response data for 'public' responses. The first chart shows the percentage of people that agreed or disagreed with each of the statements, using a 5-point ordinal Likert scale.
The second chart shows the interquartile range of responses for each dimension. These ranges represent the middle 50% of responses, which are areas on the slider where most responses typically fell. Accompanying this range is the median result for each dimension (i.e. the most common response). Smaller ranges indicate similarity in agreement between respondents, whereas larger ranges indicate a wider spread of responses.
All of the dimensions measured received over 83% overall agreement or higher, an excellent result. Of all dimensions measured, 'Presentation' (99%) received the highest level of overall agreement, demonstrating that almost the entire sample agreed that the event they attended was well produced and presented.
'Meaning' (89%), 'Access' (87%) and 'Connection' (86%) also received high levels of agreement, demonstrating that the vast majority of the sample also agreed that the event they attended moved and inspired them, that it gave them the opportunity to access cultural activities and that it made them feel connected to people in the community.
'Diversity', while still achieving positive results, received the lowest overall agreement level (83%) and also had one of the largest interquartile ranges. This indicates that respondents provided the widest range of feedback when asked if they agreed that the event engaged people from different backgrounds. 'Access' also had a large interquartile range, indicating a higher level of variance in opinion among the sample, when compared with the other dimensions.
Dimension statements can be categorised into their representative outcome domain. Outcome domains represent categorisations of dimensions based on their general area of focus. For example:
Cultural Outcomes represent dimensions that reflect shared cultural values; things we care about and the ways we share them.
Social Outcomes represent dimensions that support the building of social capital, creates and promotes participation in community life and fosters the realisation of self at the individual level.
Economic Outcomes represent dimensions that seek to promote dynamic and resilient local economies that are required to sustain vibrant communities.
Artistic & Quality Outcomes represent dimensions that connect the quality of what is produced to the realisation of intentions and the strength of their impact.
The highest-ranking outcome domain measured was 'Quality', followed by 'Social' and 'Cultural' indicating that the event excelled in these areas. Despite still being a positive result, the lowest-ranking outcome domain measured was 'Economic', meaning that respondents were slightly less likely to agree with the dimension statement from this outcome domain.
More information about outcome domains are available at https://culturaldevelopment.net.au/outcomes/
Respondents were asked about their overall experience of attending PICF 2021, with a choice of five options - Excellent, Good, Neutral, Poor and Terrible.
This chart shows the percentage of respondents that rated the event across these five options.
Almost the entire sample of respondents (98%) reported having a positive overall experience, an outstanding result. Of this sample, 79% of respondents reported having an 'excellent' experience and 19% reported their experience being 'good'. Less than 1% of respondents felt 'neutral' about the event and less than 1% of those surveyed found the experience to be 'poor'. No respondents reported having a 'terrible' experience.
Respondents were asked whether they would recommend PICF to a friend or colleague. Respondents could choose a number from 0 to 10 from a menu, with 0 meaning 'not likely at all' and 10 meaning 'extremely likely'.
These results can be used to calculate a Net Promoter Score (NPS). NPS is a standardised metric that seeks to measure loyalty between an organisation and its audience. Respondents with a score of 9 or 10 are considered 'Promoters'. 'Detractors' are those who respond with a score of 0 to 6. Scores of 7 and 8 are considered 'Passives'.
NPS is calculated by subtracting the percentage of respondents who are Detractors from the percentage of customers who are Promoters. This means that an overall Net Promoter Score can range between -100 to +100.
This chart shows the proportion of respondents that would or would not recommend PICF, followed by the calculated NPS below.
The vast majority (79%) of respondents scored the event they attended either 9 or 10, indicating they would be classified as Promoters. 15% of respondents scored passive results (7 or 8) and 6% would be considered Detractors (scoring between 0-6).
A NPS that is positive (i.e. higher than zero) is felt to be good, and an NPS of 50+ is excellent. PICF's NPS of 73 shows an outstanding level of visitor loyalty and a very high likelihood of recommendations to friends and colleagues.
Respondents were asked to provide their age and gender as part of the survey. This data enables results to be filtered to understand any differences that exist because of demography.
The following charts highlight a selection of results based on the gender that respondents identified with as well as by age cohort.
Of the three age groups which made up the majority of the sample - over 60 (52%), 50-59 (30%) and 40-49 (13%) - those aged 40-49 gave slightly higher average scores for four out of eight comparable dimensions. However, all three age groups scored consistently across the full range of dimensions, with the largest difference seen being only +4/100 between groups for 'Meaning', 'Content', 'Access' and 'Heritage'.
Regarding dimension performance, the highly positive results for 'Presentation' across all age groups suggests that age is not a relevant factor in determining whether respondents felt that the event was well produced and presented. With dimensions such as 'Connection', the slightly lower results from all three age groups demonstrates a consistent level of agreement which is slightly lower, when respondents were asked if the event they attended made them feel connected to people in the community.
When looking at the average dimensions scores by gender, males and females scored similarly for the majority of dimensions; 'Presentation', 'Excellence', 'Content', 'Heritage' and 'Connection', demonstrating that gender is not largely an influencing factor when determining the outcomes related to these statements. Females scored slightly higher on average than males for 'Meaning' and 'Access', demonstrating that they are slightly more likely to agree than males that the event they attended moved and inspired them and gave them the opportunity to access cultural activities. Males gave slightly higher scores on average for 'Diversity', demonstrating that they were more likely to agree that the event attended engaged people from different backgrounds.
Dimensions results can be pivoted by the most recent show attendees indicated that they had seen, in order to understand if different shows achieved different outcomes.
In the charts below, average dimension scores have been categorised by the most recent show that attendees had seen. These results are presented below for shows that received 10 survey responses or more. Shows that received a fewer number of responses than this have been excluded as they may not be representative of the entire population of event attendees.
'Gina Williams & Guy Ghouse: KAYLAKOORL NGALAK WARANGKA' received the highest average results for seven out of eight dimensions; 'Meaning' (92/100), 'Heritage' (92/100), 'Connection' (89/100), 'Access' (90/100), 'Diversity' (92/100), 'Presentation' (95/100) and 'Excellence' (90/100), this is an outstanding result and highlights the significant outcomes achieved by this show. The 'Closing Night Gala hosted by Michael Griffiths and Amelia Ryan' also scored very highly across the full range of dimensions, as did 'Steven Oliver: BIGGER AND BLACKER'.
The largest difference in dimension scores between shows could be seen for 'Diversity', which received an average score +34/100 points higher for 'Gina Williams & Guy Ghouse: KAYLAKOORL NGALAK WARANGKA' (92/100) than for the lowest scoring performance. There was also a large difference between these two shows for 'Access' (+27/100), demonstrating that attendees of 'Gina Williams & Guy Ghouse: KAYLAKOORL NGALAK WARANGKA' were significantly more likely to agree that the event gave them the opportunity to access cultural activities.
As part of the evaluation methodology, PICF organisers and sector peers were asked to conduct a pre-event survey, before the Festival commenced. The purpose of the prior survey is to record the performance expectation of both the organisers who are responsible for delivering the event (self assessors), as well as a selection of peer assessors, who are aware of the event and have some prior knowledge of what to expect.
After the event, the organisers (self) and peer assessors are also asked to conduct a post-event survey. With this survey, prior expectations can be compared to the achieved results. When also compared to public survey responses, this information provides organisers with an effective tool to triangulate results, investigate differences and reflect on their achievements and learnings.
Self respondents were significantly more positive for the 'Networks' (+20/100) and 'Heritage' (+27/100) dimensions than peer assessors prior to the Festival. However, these gaps were significantly closed post-Festival; the gap for 'Networks' closing to +6/100 and 'Heritage' closing to +14/100. This demonstrates that the Festival significantly exceeded the expectations of the nominated peer assessors when asked if they thought it would connect them with other people in their field and make them feel connected to a shared history/culture.
Most other dimensions also saw an increase from peer assessors post-Festival, particularly 'Diversity', which saw a significant jump of +17/100 when compared to prior expectations.
All public dimensions received lower average results than peer and self assessors, which may be influenced by the differences in sample size between the respondent groups.
Public respondents were asked questions relating to their audience behaviour, including how they heard about the event they attended and the reasons that interested them most about attending.
The majority of respondents (36%) reported hearing about the show they attended via 'Perth Theatre Trust Marketing', followed by 'Facebook' (20%), 'I am a Club Cabaret member' (18%) and 'Online (website)' (17%). The least commonly cited out of the provided options was 'Instagram' (2%). Of the 20% of respondents who selected 'Other', popular responses included 'Word of mouth', 'Friends' and 'One of the performers'.
When asked about the reasons for attending the Festival, most respondents (62%) reported 'A Specific Artist/Show' as being their primary reason. This was followed by 'I wanted to support this new initiative' (38%), 'Cabaret (in general)' (36%), 'Arts & Culture (in general)' (30%) and 'Entertainment (in general)' (28%). 'The 2021 Program' (23%) and 'Unique Experience / Something Different' (23%) were also popular options.
Respondents were asked to indicate how likely they were to return to the Festival in future years, based on their experience in 2021. Responses can be seen distributed on the chart below.
Almost the entire sample (98%) reported being likely to return to the Festival in future years, based on their experience in 2021. The vast majority of these (84%) said they would be very likely to return, with 14% reporting to be likely to return.
This demonstrates a high likelihood of PICF retaining its 2021 audiences in 2022. 2% of the sample reported feeling neutral/unsure about returning, no one reported being unlikely to return and less than 1% reported being very unlikely to return.
Respondents were asked to leave any additional feedback about their experience at PICF 2021. This feedback has been classified into positive, neutral or negative categories, with the percentage of feedback sentiment types presented in the following chart.
Feedback helps organisations understand where the value of visitor experiences lies and how they can be improved and strengthened in the future. A selection of comments have been highlighted underneath.
Congratulations to the organisers & artistic director on creating such a wonderful cultural event, (especially in these trying times). I hope it will become an iconic winter event for the people of Perth to enjoy for many years to come. Thank you!
Keep it going, a huge success and still in its infancy, can’t wait to see it grow bigger and bigger over the coming years.
I loved that it was all under one roof. I likened it to Fringe in Winter. Talent was awesome. All the shows I saw were Downstairs at the Maj which is an excellent cabaret venue. I am looking forward to what’s on offer in 2022!
The free workshops are so appreciated. I'm on a disability pension so I don't have the money to buy tickets to things. It's so kind to have these mind blowing workshops available to people like me.
I was originally scheduled to attend the Lior concert, but was pleased to be offered a table at the Closing Gala event. I was so thrilled to see the diversity in the line up, and it really reminded me why this performance style is so engaging for all ages, genders, backgrounds, orientations etc, across the community!
I loved Libby Donovan’s performance of At Last‚ Amazing. I loved the show Unsung too. The finale was brilliant even if I didn’t get to see Meow, Meow. Out of adversity came a brilliant show that proved to be a stunning way to finish the season. Do this again please.
Loved the opening with the smoking ceremony and the very engaging Welcome to Country
Great initiative & something more to add to the arts & cultural activities and experiences in Perth! More please!!
This is a great 'winter' initiative for Perth and the organisers are to be congratulated on what I'm sure will become an increasingly popular annual event on WA's cultural calendar.
Let people in earlier into the theatre for seating.
I hope that you can get Lior back. Very unfortunate about the border closing. Hopefully when the borders relax you might also get some international performers.
I did experience some difficulty with ticketing issued from PTT however all staff in the venue were very helpful
Yes. Food and wine choices good. Poles downstairs made it difficult to see some of acts.
I know the venue is small but at times was difficult to move around as the chairs/tables were cramped, but it did not deter from the experience which was great.
I found the seating far too uncomfortable and squeezed in
I had to drive in to the city and had to pay $32.00 in a Wilson car park for parking for the one hour show as all the Perth Council car parks were full
My seating at table 2 was poor very restricted felt tables were stashed into the corner to make room. Rest of room appeared to be more spaced
The food packs were disappointing
The system to buy merchandise after the show was appalling - one poor woman behind a trestle table with one credit card reader that ran out of paper, no queuing system so people were jumping in ahead of others who had been waiting for a while. If you're going to promote merchandise, have the system set up for those who wish to buy it. Complete shemozzle.
Participants of the Festival, including performing artists, were asked to provide their age, gender and identity. This data identifies the demographic sample of people who responded to the survey and took part in the event. It enables data to be matched to the wider population and responses to be filtered to understand differences in demographics.
The following charts show the proportion of survey responses captured for each of the age, gender and identity demographic questions.
Most of the participant sample (92%) indicated that they were Performing Artists that took part in the Festival, with the single remaining response (8%) coming from a manager. The most common age group for participants was the 40-49 bracket (42%), followed by those aged over 60 (25%), 30-39 (17%), 20-29 (8%) and 50-59 (8%).
Half (50%) of the participant sample identified as male, with females making up 33% and those who identified their gender in another way accounted for 17% of responses. 33% identified as LGBTQIA+, 25% reported speaking a language other than English at home and 8% identified as a person with disability.
Participants of PICF 2021 moved a slider to indicate whether they agreed or disagreed with the included dimension statements in relation to the event. The following charts contain the response data for participant responses, showing the average result for each dimension.
Eight out of nine dimensions measured received an average score from Participants of 81/100 or higher, an excellent result. 'Support' (98/100) and 'Presentation' (97/100) received the highest results overall, indicating that participants were most likely to agree that the organisers supported them and that the Festival was well produced and presented. 'Diversity' (96/100) and 'Content' (96/100) also scored particularly highly, demonstrating that the vast majority of the sample also agreed that the event engaged people from different backgrounds and that it reflected a broad and inclusive range of voices.
While still a positive result, 'Collaboration' (79/100) received the lowest average score from participants, demonstrating that they were least likely to agree that the Festival provided opportunities for collaboration.
At a 95% confidence level, 'Support' and 'Presentation' received a margin of error of 2.6% and 4.3% respectively. This means that we can be 95% confident that if we surveyed the entire visitor population, the average outcome for 'Support' would fall within 2.6% of the average generated by the sample. The remaining seven dimensions received a margin of error that was more than 5%, which indicates that the results may not be a reasonable representation of the total population.
Participants were asked if they would like to explain their reasoning behind the scores given. Responses can be seen below.
If you would like to, please explain your reasoning behind the scores given.
I was very happy with the communication in all aspects. What was required of me: publicity, rehearsal, times, the sound, lights, etc were all excellent and great to deal with. The launch, and Finale,(I was lucky to be a part of) were well put together and Fun. Artistic director was well chosen and a pleasure to deal with. Well done Michael.
wonderful support and focus on the artists
I felt very supported as a performer through out the week. Small things like having meal vouchers given to me for each night I was there is great and the show I was involved with ran smoothly overall had a fun, relaxed vibe.
Being part of this festival has been wonderful for me as an older, solo, female artist. A completely supportive environment in which I had access to show advice, technical and social media support, felt seen and heard and respected as an Artist.
The Artist I represent could not enter WA so the performance was canceled. I found the festival staff I dealt with to be polite, informative, professional, down to earth, and always helpful.
Fantastically produced, managed, hosted from start to finish. Kept informed throughout. An honour to perform in this inaugural festival.
The shows I got to see were truly the best in their field
I've done a lot of festivals and I thought it was so well organised. They were spot on dealing with cancelled shows and the replacement Closing Gala. I was very impressed.
Participants were asked about their overall experience of their involvement with PICF 2021, with a choice of five options - Excellent, Good, Neutral, Poor and Terrible.
This chart shows the percentage of respondents that rated the event across these five options.
All participants (100%) reported having a positive overall experience. In addition to this, every participant reported that their experience was excellent, an outstanding result. Likewise, every participant (100%) strongly agreed that the Festival is a valuable program to continue in the future.
These results demonstrate an outstanding experience provided by the organisers and venue to participants of the Festival.
Participants were asked to leave a comment about what they believed to be the most positive aspects of the program. A selection of responses can be seen below.
What were the most positive aspects of the program?
From my perspective as a side musician/performer - the teamwork, good nature and professionalism of everybody involved right from the theatre staff to the techs, the artists and organisers. It was fun, engaging, powerful and positive!
The producing team and artistic director were very inclusive and available at all times for advice and direction.
showcased emerging as well as established acts
The diversity
The presentation,the production and the staff.
Everyone coming together and supporting one another. Feeling like a team brimming with optimism and excitement about this inaugural festival and always going the extra mile.
The range of diversity with age, genre, gender, and ethnicity
Wide range of acts, something for everyone
a diverse line up of shows
Participants were additionally asked how they believed the program could be improved in the future. A selection of comments can be seen below.
How could the program be improved in the future?
By keeping the local element strong. Perhaps offering 2 shows per performer to help give the artist a chance to fully build the audience thus creating more of a buzz from the beginning of the festival until the end.
It was perfectly done. Although I could have had my merchandise settlement quicker (lol)!
I think in time the program will improve with age. It's definitely on the right track and in the right hands.
No COVID 19. Perhaps more Press lead up.
more culturally diverse performers/stories being told - there was wonderful representation of First Nations voices, but not so much of immigrant/CALD experiences through song
I think the only way is up regarding more international and interstate acts although covid obviously was an issue this year. Along with this I would look at putting on some other free or low cost acts into some other performance spaces around the general vicinity to create more buzz and awareness of the main acts across the weekend, possibly attract more business to local cafes etc. What about activating Shafto lane as a satellite venue?
possibly longer show runs for some shows
Obviously for post-covid times but i would love to see more "alt-cabaret" and representation for younger and independent artists.
Participants were additionally asked how they believed the program could be improved in the future. A selection of comments can be seen below.
Do you have any additional comments or feedback about your experience?
I thoroughly enjoyed the experience,and felt comfortable with all aspects from woah to go!
I'm grateful to have been involved and I will make sure to tell everyone I can about next years festival, because it was truly something special!
The crew at this particular venue were utmost professional and really gave time to the artist with full tech runs and offering advice where needed. A great, dignified experience.
More bar staff! The wait times at the bars pre show were very poor!
People were very impressed with the final night. That was money well spent.
Thoroughly enjoyed every minute
Spending questions ask survey respondents about how much they spent in the local area. Respondents are asked to exclude accommodation or other travel expenses as these are separated as part of the economic impact calculations.
Respondents are also asked what they would have done otherwise if it was not for their attendance at the event. This question is used to determine 'additionality', which is the percentage of spending per person that can genuinely be attributed to the event i.e. that wouldn't have occurred if the event wasn't held.
The following charts show the visitor spending and additionality results used in the economic impact analysis, as well as what spending types respondents reported.
65% of respondents reported spending less than $100 per person at the event and in the local area, with most people reporting to have spent between $0-$50 (41%) and $50-$100 (24%). This was followed by those who reported spending between $100-$150 (16%). The remaining 16% spent over $150 during their visit.
After outliers were removed, the average visit spend per person was determined as $73.24. A weighting is applied to spend results within the economic impact analysis depending on where respondents come from, and therefore this average result may differ from the weighted average. When both results are very close, it is understood to be a rigorous result.
The vast majority (79%) of respondents reported that they would have stayed home or gone to work if it had not been for the Festival. 12% of the sample reported that they would have done something else in the local area and 9% would have done something else not in the local area.
Survey respondents who identified as living intrastate, interstate or overseas were asked additional questions about their spending and reasons for visiting. This data is used to determine the economic impact of the event on tourism-related spending.
Tourism additionality asks respondents how much influence the event had on their decision to visit WA (or Perth, for regional visitors). Tourists that indicated the event was their primary reason for visiting means that 100% of their trip spend is attributable to the event, whereas tourists that were unaware of the event before visiting indicates that the event was responsible for 0% of their trip spend.
A weighted exponential scale of attribution is applied to calculate an overall trip additionality figure in the economic impact calculations (i.e. 100%, 50%, 25%, 5%, 0%).
Respondents were also asked to identify their primary reason for travel. Response options for this question were sourced from Tourism Research Australia for benchmarking purposes.
Half (50%) of the sample of tourist respondents reported that they were visiting Perth/WA for 'Holiday/Leisure'. This was followed by 'Visiting Friends/Relatives' (25%) and 'Business' (13%) and 'Other' (13%).
Survey respondents were asked to estimate how much they had spent as part of their visit, the level of influence on their decision to visit, as well as indicate what they would have done if they had not visited. Combining this data with attendance figures allows an overall impact figure to be generated.
Economic impact is determined by three main factors:
Visits/Attendance: The number of people spending money (converted to the number of nights for accommodation and longer trips).
Spend: Spending in the local economy. Includes spend as part of a visit, spend on accommodation for those staying overnight and other trip-related spending for those staying multiple nights. Excludes spending on tickets or other items that would be captured through organisation expenditure (i.e. to avoid double-counting).
Additionality: The percentage of spending that would not have occurred otherwise.
To calculate the economic impact on the local area, only additional visitation is included. From those visits, only expenditure that would not have otherwise occurred is considered. In this case, the economic impact is from attendees who would have otherwise stayed at home, gone to work, or those who would have done something else outside the local area.
The tables below detail a breakdown of visitation by additionality (i.e. new visits to the area because of the event), visitor expenditure (if they came and stayed in the area because of the event and any other spending they did), and total economic output.
| ORIGIN | VISITORS | EVENT SPEND | ADDITIONALITY | TOTAL |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perth Metro Area | 3,130 | $77.58 | 89% | $215,188 |
| Elsewhere in WA | 94 | $102.50 | 100% | $9,639 |
| Interstate | 54 | $105.00 | 50% | $2,821 |
| Overseas | 0 | - | - | $0 |
| TOTAL | 3,278 | $78.74 | 88% | $227,649 |
| ORIGIN | NIGHTS | ACCOM SPEND/NIGHT | TRIP SPEND/NIGHT | ADDITIONALITY | TOTAL |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perth Metro Area | 133 | $120.73 | - | 89% | $14,194 |
| Elsewhere in WA | 18 | $50.00 | - | 75% | $656 |
| Interstate | 72 | $166.67 | $199.31 | 44% | $11,568 |
| Overseas | 0 | - | - | - | $0 |
| TOTAL | 222 | $130.08 | $64.74 | 61% | $26,418 |
| DIRECT IMPACT | MULTIPLIED IMPACT | |
|---|---|---|
| Total Nights Generated | 162 | |
| Attendee Spending | $262,167 | $771,214 |
| Event/Visit | $227,649 | $673,841 |
| Accommodation | $20,118 | $55,326 |
| Trip | $14,400 | $42,048 |
| Organiser Expenditure | $451,834 | $1,206,397 |
| Total Impact | $714,001 | $1,977,611 |
Note: For the purpose of this analysis, output multipliers derived from ABS Output Tables 2012-13 have been applied to direct impact expenditure.
Event expenditure scaled by an output multiplier of 2.96, the national Food and Beverage multiplier (2.96).
Accommodation expenditure scaled by an output multiplier of 2.75, the national Accommodation multiplier.
Trip expenditure scaled by an output multiplier of 2.92, representing an average of national Retail and, Food and Beverage multipliers (2.88 and 2.96 respectively).
Organisation expenditure scaled by the Australian National Heritage, Creative and Performing Arts Output Multiplier (2.67).
This report has been prepared by Laura Doyle and Jack Midalia of Culture Counts. The authors would like to thank all stakeholders and staff for their participation in this research.
Approved by: Kristine Genovese.
Date of Approval: 6 August 2021
We respectfully acknowledge the Traditional Owners of Country throughout Australia and recognise the continuing connection to lands, waters and communities. We pay our respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures; and to Elders past and present.