Fuzzy Math, Bad Reporting

News-Press reporter Jimmy Myers transcribes the pitch for a 2010 Tour of Missouri supported by public funding. 

It seems an easy sell on the surface — the tour brought more than $38 million into the state last year, and gained back the state’s investment in tax revenue, [Brent Hugh, executive director of the Missouri Bicycle and Pedestrian Federation] said. It also brought invaluable international exposure to Missouri.

“If the state is going to put in a certain amount of money,” he said, “immediately, four or five times that amount will come in from private sponsorship.”

Myers allows Hugh to assert -- without challenge -- that the 2009 Tour of Missouri "brought more than $38 million into the state," that it "gained back the state’s investment in tax revenue," and that a 2010 appropriation would "immediately" generate $4-$5 million in corporate sponsorships.

For the 2009 Race, Tour of Missouri, Inc. only received 40% of its funding from private donors. The corporation received $1.5M from the state tourism fund, and another $500,000 from the Missouri Development Finance Board.  Only $1.344 million came from corporate sponsors, according to the Associated Press.  So how does Hugh decide that corporate sponsors will decide to chip in three to four times the amount they did last year if the state appropriates $1M this go 'round?  We don't know because Myers doesn't ask.

The $38 million guestimate about the economic impact impact of the 2009 race comes from a vendor hired by the Tour of Missouri, Inc., and doesn't stand up to scrutiny.  Perhaps that's way it still hasn't been officially released by the TOM or Peter Kinder's office, despite promises to do so back in October. (You can read a copy obtained via Sunshine request here, however.) 

There has been no analysis of tax receipts in local communities or by the state that would suggest that the state has "gained back" the $2M in taxpayer money, as Hugh states.

The $38M figure frequently cited by Kinder and TOM officials was created by multiplying what they believed to typical spectator spending by the total number of people they thought were at each stage of the race. A breakdown of that process may be found here.  For instance, the company hired by TOM to produce the estimate believed that 71,000 people watched the race in Jefferson City (!).  They then multiplied that total by what they believed the average spectator would have shucked out, and announced that the City of Jefferson benefited from $5,410,128 in economic activity on a Thursday afternoon.

Indeed, numerous local officials have challenged the numbers from Kinder and his team in recent years.

• Cape Girardeau. A spokesman for the Cape Girardeau Convention and Visitors Bureau, along with local Tour organizers, estimated that the race brought more than $314,000 dollars raced into the city.  The official TOM study, however, states that $2,000,223 was spent by race spectators in the city-- more than six times what local businesses reported.
• St. Joseph. The Executive Director of the St. Joseph Visitors Bureau and Commission expressed doubts in October. The race’s economic impact to host cities wasn’t worth the cost, she said. "It’s just a whole lot of work for 15 minutes."
• Columbia. The Tribune reported in November that local officials found the economic gain "questionable."
• Springfield. In October, the CEO of the Springfield Convention & Visitors Bureau said youth soccer tournaments and a PBR bull riding competition drew more overnight stays than the 2008 Tour of Missouri.
• Branson. The CEO of the Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce (who happens to be a Republican donor) said his area also did not get a positive economic impact for its $70,000-plus investment. "We saw this not as much as a sporting event but a PR campaign" and Branson officials "would have to think long and hard about submitting another bid" to become a host city in 2010.

It's the job of the Missouri Bicycle and Pedestrian Federation and the Missouri Bicycling Racing Association to fight to keep the race going.  I even have a hard time faulting Hugh for using the $38M economic impact estimate provided to him by TOM, Inc. It has the illusion of legitimacy, and there's no reason to believe his organization was involved in manufacturing those numbers. 

Hugh and other supporters should, however, be aware of the doubts that remain about the 2009 study, and should probably post the study to the Tour website if they want the public to take it seriously.  They should also think twice before promising that corporate sponsors will suddenly donate four to five times the state taxpayers' investment in a 2010 race, even though they haven't in the past. 

Meanwhile, reporters are under no obligation to pass along TOM, Inc. talking points as fact when they know (or should know) that the economic impact claims are exaggerated.