(Blogmaster Note: Oro Valley contributes $75,000 annually to the Metropolitan Tucson Convention & Visitors Bureau (MTCVB). It is our contention that this expenditure is not justified. It is the contention of many others that MTCVB, itself, is a poorly functioning, poorly performing organization. Click here to view other postings we have made on MTCVB.)
---
Item A on the consent portion on the Town Council Agenda on February 15, 2012 is for approving (“rubber-stamping”) the Metropolitan Tucson Convention & Visitors Bureau (MTCVB) second quarter report of performance in relation to the Town of Oro Valley. This report is incomplete and warrants the full attention of the members of the Oro Valley town council. Council should not "rubber stamp" it.
Let me provide a few examples of why this agenda item should be discussed by Council in more detail.
The first page of the first quarter report shows 85 sales leads and 6 site inspections. The report does not provide any examples of the purported 85 sales leads. Nor does it provide information on the six sales leade. Shouldn't the town ask for a couple of examples of the 6 site inspections for Oro Valley Properties? Who asked for the site inspections? Where and when did the inspections take place?
The report includes supporting exhibits to illustrate MTCVB performance. The exhibits are suspect.
- The first exhibit was an article titled “Tourists Pay Wages for 21,000 Tucsonans” published as a guest column for “Inside Tucson Business”. The author, Lynn Ericksen, General Manager, Hilton Tucson El Conquistador and also the Chair of the MTCVB Board of Directors wrote a glowing report on how Destination Marketing Organizations (DMO) such as MTCVB were key to Tucson (No bias from Lynn of course, just “fair and balanced reporting). Oro Valley is not mentioned in the article so why is it in the MTCVB Oro Valley Report?
- The next exhibit “Kansas City On The Cheap” is a web site that offers vacation deals. It talks about Tucson, Arizona. There is no mention of Oro Valley.
- The next exhibit announces that MTCVB has won the 2011 Gold Service Award from Meetings & Conventions Magazine and won it 23 times. What does this have to do directly with representing Oro Valley?
- The next exhibit is from Japan Tours. It has an article that discusses “Why Rent a Luxurious Holiday Rental Property As Opposed to a Resort”? The article gushes on how Ultimate Luxurious Rentals will save vacationers time, income, privacy, etc., especially in Tucson, Arizona. The article touts going to Tucson and expounds on the culture in Tucson. It does mention Oro Valley as an expanding growth area of Tucson (I didn’t think Oro Valley was part of Tucson) and then disparages Oro Valley as a difficult place to travel to (45 minutes).
- The next exhibit is from the Arizona Daily Star Newspaper titled “Tourism Plan Puts Spotlight on Science”. It discusses how biodiversity in Southern Arizona is growing and Tucson should be a Science City destination not just a “fun and sun” destination. There is no mention of Oro Valley.
- The next exhibit is from a web site “Get Me One”. The Article is titled “Visit the Catalina State Park and Other Arizona Attractions”. It mentions Tucson but not Oro Valley.
- The next exhibit is from a web site “I Blog Robot Dot Com”. The Article is titled “Tour the Catalina State Park and Arizona State Park”. It mentions Tucson but not Oro Valley.
- The next exhibit is from a web site “xaminer.com”. The Article is titled “Astounding Nature – Arizona holds the hummingbird capital of the United States”. It does not mention Tucson or Oro Valley.
- The last exhibit is from a web site “bali-catering.com”. The Article is a revised copy of the Japan Tours Article.
Why does the Town of Oro Valley continue to donate $75,000 to MTCVB for incomplete or questionable performance?
Where is due diligence by the Town Council?
John Musolf
---
12 comments:
Isn't there some penalty from the ASPCA for the continuous beating of a dead horse?
cox should realize the horse 'aint' dead as long as Hiremath, Snider, Waters and "The Trashman," Solomon continue to feed it.
When these elected or in the case of Solomon; Appointed, stop throwing OUR money at MTCVB & TREO, John Musolf will have no further reason to enlighten us.
Hopefully, the vast majority of OV residents are more enlightened than cox!
Whenever Thinker is unable to debate someone's argument, he simply falls back to his "you're beating a dead horse" response.
I suspect that Thinker cannot handle the thoroughly researched and thoroughly detailed reports by John M.
If Thinker is so convinced that John is wrong, then he would respond to John's report, point by point. Instead he just offers a generalized comment with NOTHING to back it up.
Even the hotels in town gave MTCVB a very poor rating in a recent survey.
What does OVOT - THINK - about the OV payment to MTCVB?
We want to know.
To OV Objective Thinker:
OVOT’s (a.k.a. Don Cox) comment on my Guest View on MTCVB.
“Isn't there some penalty from the ASPCA for the continuous beating of a dead horse?”
I want to thank Don Cox for his incisive and penetrating comment on my analysis of what OV gets from MTCVB for its investment. Don’s comment’s clarity and depth was very illuminating!
I tried to show that MTCVB 2nd quarter performance report was questionable. Not only did I do a Guest View on the LOVE Blog, but sent the Mayor and Council Members an email on Tuesday, February 14, 2012 one day before the Town Council Meeting on February 15, 2012, with the same information questioning why it was on the Consent Agenda (Routine and Non-Controversial Items) and that the Council should do some due diligence on their investment.
John Musolf
Folks.....Isn't there something more important for you (pl) to gritch about that the contribution to these two organizations.
According to my calculations it's about 0.00125 of our budget.
Maybe this will be bland enough to get posted.
Hmmm! THREE HUNDRED AND EIGHTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS!
Why would anyone be concerned over such a "measly" amount of money?
After all, what else could that small of amount of money be used for?
How about enough to pay more than half the cost of allowing Coyote Run to remain autonomous?
Might even have been used to alleviate at least some of that foolhardy and costly tax on our gas, water & electric bills.
No big deal.
One must wonder why John Musolf even brings the TREO & MTVCB issue to our attention.
Congratulations, John! You did it. You shut Thinker up. If he could debate your analysis, he would.
Instead, all he could manage to muster were his two old standbys of "you're beating a dead horse" and "don't you have anything more important to gritch about."
I declare today as "John Musolf Day."
Next up on the OV Town Council Agenda: Voting to give the town employees another paid day off for this new holiday.
art......I know there are things that challenge all of us in this world. Allow me to help you in one areas that evidently challenges you.
$75,000 and $43,000= $118,000.
Glad I could be of assistance.
cox---My mistake was typing "three" in lieu of "one."
YOUR MISTAKE was commenting on John Musolf's work in pointing out the foolishness of throwing our money at TREO & MTCVB.
Now, who made the BIGGER mistake?
The readers can decide!
Art....I am glad that you FINALLY admit you believe it is a mistake for me to comment.
Have a great weekend. I have bee enjoying myself since about 12:30PM last Thursday.
LOVE!!!
Post a Comment