Fort Worth Vision Project Research Results Stacy Landreth Grau, - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Stacy Landreth Grau, Ph.D. Susan Bardi Kleiser, Ph.D. Department of Marketing

Fort Worth Vision Project Research Results

• Research objectives
• Methodology for phase 1-3
• Data collection for surveys
• Results
• Recommendations

Agenda

• To understand the image of

Fort Worth in order to attract and retain creative professional young people to Fort Worth

Research Objectives

• Phase 1: Secondary

research on comparable and aspirational cities

• Phase 2: Qualitative research

(focus groups, interviews)

• Phase 3: Survey Fort Worth

and survey eight comparable and aspirational cities

Methodology

• Online survey sent to over 1,000 Young

Professional (YPs) in Fort Worth (FW)

−Purpose to gather information on perceptions of FW as well as aspirational and comparable cities on key city attributes such as education and public transportation

• An abridged survey was sent to over 150

respondents of the same demographic profile in each of the 8 aspirational and comparable cities

−Respondents evaluated their home city as well as FW on the same key city attributes

Fort Worth Survey

FW Respondent Profile

• 870 completed responses
• 46% male/ 54% female
• Median age: 33
• 97% heterosexual
• 82% white
• 56% married; 30% single

−40% have at least one child (under 18) living in house

• Only 11% of all respondents

send (or have sent) children to FWISD

• 51% have bachelor’s degree,

26% masters’

• 68% volunteer in FW

community

• 47% earn $100K or more in

combined annual household income

• Top industries for

employment:

−Professional, scientific or technical services (19%) −Finance/insurance (17%) −Non profit (10%)

Where Respondents Live and Work

• Live:

− 76107 (12%) − 76109 (6%) − 76116 (5%) − 76110 (5%) − 76102 (5%)

• Work:

− 76102 (33%) − 76107 (11%) − 76109 (6%)

• Overwhelmingly positive response
• “large city with small town feel”; “laid back culture”;

“fantastic restaurants, museums, and entertainment”; “works like a city, acts like a town”

• Negative responses were based on:

−Transportation & Infrastructure −Conservative culture −Education/ISD −Lack of cultural diversity −Air quality −Gas companies

Perceptions of Fort Worth

Specific Perceptions of Fort Worth by FW Respondents

• They are Satisfied!

−89% are very satisfied with Fort Worth

• They are Loyal… to a point

− 74% are likely to come back to FW if they ever left − 81% are likely to recommend FW to friends − 92% are happy to live/work in FW − 82% feel connected to FW − 86% agree that FW is important to them − But only 48% will stay in FW if offered another opportunity in another city

• They are ambivalent to the city nicknames

−72% think “Cowtown” is good −Only 22% think “Panther City” is good

• City has a good reputation but has room to improve

−90% agree that FW has a good reputation −94% agree that FW is a good place to live −61% say that there is enough recreational space in FW −Only 46% feel Fort Worth is pedestrian friendly −Only 38% feel that FW is good at providing support for Entrepreneurs or Business Start-Ups −Only 54% agree that FW has a clear vision of its future

Specific Perceptions (cont.)

Comparable & Aspirational Cities

• Aspirational cities

−Atlanta −Austin −Denver −Portland

• Comparable cities

−Charlotte −Cincinnati −Dallas −Kansas City

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

• Aspirational

Cities

• Comparable

Cities

Preference Ranks by Respondents in Aspirational and Comparable Cities to Live/Work in FW

Only Dallas respondents show preference at living/working in Fort Worth.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

• Aspirational

Cities

• Comparable

Cities

FW Respondents’ Preference Rank to Live in Aspirational/Comparable Cities

If not living in Fort Worth, FW YPs would live in neighboring Texas cities of Austin or Dallas, as well as venturing to Denver.

Key City Attributes

• “Leisure Amenities”

−Developed Downtown Core −Nightlife (e.g., restaurants, clubs, live music) −Cultural Amenities (e.g., museums, symphony, ballet) −Parks and Recreation

• “Social Good”

– Public transportation (e.g., access, availability) – Environmentally friendly (e.g., air quality, recycling) – Public education – Social diversity (e.g., ethnic, socio- economic)

• “Stability”

– Safety (e.g., crime rate, street lights) – Employment

• pportunities in a

wide range of fields – Cost of Living – Higher Education

10 12 14 16 18 20 Leisure Social Good Stability

Importance of Key City Attributes

FW and Aspirational Cities

10 12 14 16 18 20 Leisure Social Good Stability

FW and Comparable Cities

Regardless of their home city, YP respondents value Stability above all else.

Perception of Home City on Key City Attributes

10 12 14 16 18 20 Charlotte Cincinnati Dallas KC FW Leisure Social Good Stability 10 12 14 16 18 20 Atlanta Austin Denver Portland FW Leisure Social Good Stability

FW and Aspirational Cities FW and Comparable Cities

Although stability is important, YP respondents across the board perceive their cities to be better at their “leisure amenities.”

Perception of FW on Key City Attributes

10 12 14 16 18 20 Atlanta Austin Denver Portland FW Leisure Social Good Stability 10 12 14 16 18 20 Charlotte Cincinnati Dallas KC FW Leisure Social Good Stability

FW and Comparable Cities FW and Aspirational Cities

The “flatline” in responses suggests no one, except for our Dallas neighbors, knows who we are.

FW’s Perceptions of Other Cities

10 12 14 16 18 20 Atlanta Austin Denver Portland Leisure Social Good Stability 10 12 14 16 18 20 Charlotte Cincinnati Dallas KC Leisure Social Good Stability

Aspirational Cities Comparable Cities

But the feeling is mutual…somewhat. FW YPs only know their Texas counterparts. Yet FW YPs tend to perceive Aspirational Cities more favorably than Comparable Cities.

From our Texas neighbors

• Austin

−Ideal place to live in DFW −Cowboys −Suburban sprawl; suburb of Dallas −More laid back than Dallas −Too big to country town −More authentic

• Dallas

−More laid back −Good downtown −Friendlier; family friendly −Needs to be better for nightlife; “country feel” −More authentic (not as snooty) −Up and coming

Most cities have no idea

• Denver

−Hot, dry, far −Suburb of Dallas −Too conservative −Texas (and that is not said nicely) −Most have NO IDEA!

Conclusions and Recommendations

• Fort Worth is a “Well Kept Secret”

−GOOD: beloved by its YPs (retain)

• Satisfied, loyal
• City provides stability and leisure opportunities which YPs find important to

the attractiveness of a city

−BAD: no one else knows how great FW is! (attract)

• How do we attract?

−Reach out to local HR departments to promote the city −Determine social media presence (e.g. social media monitoring) and then developing a social media strategy to promote the area (including recommendation engines)