search.noResults

search.searching

dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
Venue Data Source & University Venue Research | By Lawrence Henley, CVE UNIVERSITIES:


In 2010, with generous funding from the IAVM Foundation, our Association established the industry-wide research project known as VenueDataSource (VDS). With much helpful assis- tance from our valued network of IAVM member venues, the VDS project has produced an extensive information portfolio in the ensuing years. In general, VDS research has been seg- mented on venue type, as opposed to governing body. The Uni- versities sector has long desired answers to questions specific to operations at university venues. While, in the broader sense, it has always been possible to isolate university venue data, many important issues specific to venues owned and governed by uni- versities had yet to be examined. In May of this year, the IAVM Universities Committee (in conjunction with the IAVM Research Committee, the steering entity for VDS), conducted a survey of collegiate venues. With- in this survey, managers operating venues at member colleges and universities were asked a series of 27 questions. The ma- jority of the questions related specifically to venue operations at universities. Please note, this study did not seek to distinguish between venue types (to be more closely examined in future studies). Response to the survey was robust, with 137 individu- als reporting from 97 different academic member institutions. The venue type breakdown, as selected by our respondents,


was as follows: Arenas – 37%; Performing Arts Centers – 31%; Stadiums – 8%; Complexes – 18%; and Conference Centers – 6%. The list of participating institutions was impressive. In- cluded were venerable institutions such as Arizona State Uni- versity, Berklee College of Music, Boston University, Brigham Young University, Georgetown, Harvard, Indiana, Iowa State, Michigan State, The Ohio State, Penn State, Rochester Insti- tute of Technology, Saint Louis University, University of Texas at Austin, and the University of Utah. The results of this study were presented at the 2018 University Venue Managers Con- ference at VenueConnect 2018 in Toronto. For those who were unable to attend that session, here is a summary of findings. The market sizes breakdown of reporting venues was: First Tier – 47% (Major league sports, NCAA Division I, entertain- ment, touring or major national convention market, or equiv- alent); Second Tier – 33% (Secondary sports league, NCAA Division II, entertainment, touring or smaller national and regional convention market, or equivalent); and Third Tier – 20% (Minor league sports, NCAA Division III, entertainment, touring or small regional convention and local event market, or equivalent). 61% of respondents also indicated that they oper- ate multiple venues within the purview of their institution. Because governance is such an important major factor in uni-


versity funding, budgeting, hiring, planning, construction, and other key determinants, we asked respondents about it. 77% indicated that they work for Public universities, as opposed to 23% employed at Private institutions. 68% of those at public schools told us that their college or university is under state


50 Facility Manager Magazine


CONNECTING RESEARCH AND PRACTICE


ownership, with 7% indicating public land grant status or local community ownership. We also asked college venue managers if they operated additional venues not located on their campuses, with a response of 15% indicating that they do run at least one venue located off-property. From past town hall events, it was evident that there is an on- going interest in college reporting structures. These tend to have significant impacts on available resources, campus and commu- nity visibility, and decision-making authority. We asked manag- ers to tell us to what authority office and to whom they report, as well as their preference of whom they would report if given the choice. A majority 43% indicated that they currently report to Business and Finance units, followed by University Presidents or Chancellors (16.5%), Provost Office or academic unit (7.5%), Athletic Departments (7.5%) and Student Affairs offices (6%). Other responses receiving 3% or less included Administrative and Auxiliary Services, Chiefs of Staff at the VP level, Campus Venue Management, Community Relations, Recreational Sports, Facil- ities Management, Art and Entertainment Districts, joint-office governance, and stand-alone divisions. Most respondents said they report directly to a Vice-President, either in Business and Finance (30%), or “Other Vice-President” (28%). Other often-named officials were Athletic Director (14%), University President (4%) and Academic Dean (4%). Several oth- er supervisory titles were also submitted, at lesser percentages. In the main, managers indicated that they are content with the officials to whom they report. 41% selected Vice-President of Business and Finance as their ideal report. One notable finding was that Athletic Director received nearly triple the supervisor wish-list response relative to the number who actually do report to an “AD.” We then shifted to income and budgeting issues, where 50% of


responding college venues said that they rely on earned income to fulfill at least three-quarters, or more of their annual budgets. Only 20% said that earned income constitutes 25% or less of their revenue each year, with earned revenues being defined as non-academic, internal and external event generated revenue, event related income, venue rental, ticket sales, parking, labor and services, food and beverage/concessions, merchandise sales, and other retail sales. Figures for the unearned income category varied greatly, with


nearly every funding response level clocking in at either 14% or 15% of total annual income. Forms of Unearned income includ- ed academic-sponsored budgets, student fees, grants, state fund- ing, university approved subsidies, interest income, and university advertising guarantees. Roughly 75% of reporting venues said that they receive no additional direct-dedicated tax, or tax district income that is exclusive of their state funding. In terms of con- tributed revenue, such as donations, endowments, and corporate funding, the largest group (33%) state that they do not receive any such revenue. However, a substantial 28% indicated that con-


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60