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

Fort Worth Vision Project Research Results Stacy Landreth Grau, Ph.D. Susan Bardi Kleiser, Ph.D. Department of Marketing

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

Research Objectives • To understand the image of Fort Worth in order to attract and retain creative professional young people to Fort Worth

Methodology • 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

Fort Worth Survey • 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

FW Respondent Profile • 870 completed responses • 51% have bachelor’s degree, 26% masters’ • 46% male/ 54% female • 68% volunteer in FW • Median age: 33 community • 97% heterosexual • 47% earn $100K or more in combined annual household • 82% white income • 56% married; 30% single • Top industries for employment: − 40% have at least one child (under 18) living in house − Professional, scientific or technical services (19%) • Only 11% of all respondents − Finance/insurance (17%) send (or have sent) children − Non profit (10%) to FWISD

Where Respondents Live and Work • Live: − 76107 (12%) − 76109 (6%) − 76116 (5%) − 76110 (5%) − 76102 (5%) • Work: − 76102 (33%) − 76107 (11%) − 76109 (6%)

Perceptions of Fort Worth • 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

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

Specific Perceptions (cont.) • 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

Comparable & Aspirational Cities • Aspirational cities − Atlanta − Austin − Denver − Portland • Comparable cities − Charlotte − Cincinnati − Dallas − Kansas City

Preference Ranks by Respondents in Aspirational and Comparable Cities to Live/Work in FW 8 7 6 5 4  Aspirational 3 Cities 2  Comparable 1 Cities 0 Only Dallas respondents show preference at living/working in Fort Worth.

FW Respondents’ Preference Rank to Live in Aspirational/Comparable Cities 9 8 7 6 5  Aspirational 4 Cities 3  Comparable 2 Cities 1 0 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 • “Social Good” • “Stability” • “Leisure Amenities” – Safety (e.g., crime – Public transportation − Developed Downtown rate, street lights) (e.g., access, Core availability) – Employment − Nightlife (e.g., – Environmentally opportunities in a restaurants, clubs, friendly (e.g., air wide range of fields live music) quality, recycling) – Cost of Living − Cultural Amenities – Public education – Higher Education (e.g., museums, – Social diversity (e.g., symphony, ballet) ethnic, socio- economic) − Parks and Recreation

Importance of Key City Attributes 20 20 18 18 16 16 Leisure Leisure 14 Social Good 14 Social Good Stability 12 Stability 12 10 10 FW and Aspirational FW and Comparable Cities Cities Regardless of their home city, YP respondents value Stability above all else.

Perception of Home City on Key City Attributes 20 20 18 18 16 16 Leisure Leisure Social Good Social Good 14 Stability 14 Stability 12 12 10 10 Atlanta Austin Denver Portland FW Charlotte Cincinnati Dallas KC FW FW and Comparable Cities FW and Aspirational 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 20 20 18 18 16 16 Leisure Leisure Social Good Social Good 14 14 Stability Stability 12 12 10 10 Atlanta Austin Denver Portland FW Charlotte Cincinnati Dallas KC FW 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 20 20 18 18 16 16 Leisure Leisure Social Good Social Good 14 14 Stability Stability 12 12 10 10 Atlanta Austin Denver Portland Charlotte Cincinnati Dallas KC 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 • Dallas − Ideal place to live in − More laid back DFW − Good downtown − Cowboys − Friendlier; family friendly − Suburban sprawl; − Needs to be better for suburb of Dallas nightlife; “country feel” − More laid back than − More authentic (not as Dallas snooty) − Too big to country town − Up and coming − More authentic

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)