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
tributed revenues comprises 25%-39% of their annual budgets. We then asked university managers “Considering the past


five years, would you state that (overall) your base University funding has increased, decreased, or remained the same?” Sta- sis won the day, with almost half of respondents reporting no base funding increase, 36% reporting a funding decrease, and a mere 17% reporting increased base funding. We then asked the same question about contributed funding over the past five years, with 32% stating that contributions have increased, and another 50% remaining stagnant. Combined, these answers likely indicate that university venues increasingly are becoming more reliant on contributed funding to compensate for losses of traditional base hard-dollar funding. Only 37% of venues reported that they have the ability to fundraise independently of their institution’s over-arching foundations. The next topic was scheduling priority, and those results were


somewhat unsurprising. Athletic teams and university orga- nizations dominated at 86%, with self-produced and promot- er-driven events limited to 14% of the total. We then asked about venue use in terms of in-house event promotions versus promoter, co-promotion and rental events. The largest constit- uent group (47%) tallied in-house presenting levels at 10% and lower, versus 90%-100% activity by outside entities, with only 27% indicating that in-house presenting was at levels between 26% and 75%. The survey also asked questions concerning the use of stu-


dent workers. 51% indicated that they rely on students for at least half of their part-time hourly workforce. 10% say they are relying almost exclusively on student labor. Student em- ployee turnover rates varied, with the majority (58%) hovering at between 25% to 75% leaving their staffs annually. 76% of respondents said that their venues offer students paid assistant- ships, with 61% offering paid student internships. Only 32% indicated that they maintain an awards or incentive program


for student staff members. This study makes it clear that student workers are used in most


venue departments, at varying levels of responsibility. The most common unit cited was Operations, coming in at a substantial 70% using students, followed by Guest Services and Box Office (both at 56%), Administration (30%), Housekeeping/Custodial (26%), and Internet Technology (18%). Other lesser areas for stu- dent employees include Booking, Marketing, Security, Food and Beverage/Retail, and Ice Operations. Salaries have long been a popular topic with VDS contributors,


so we asked university managers about their salary adjustments between 2016 and the present. The largest segment (44%) told us that salaries at their venues had increased between 0% and 3% since 2016, with 25% revealing raises of 4% to 6%. A fortunate 22% reported increases of 7% or higher. A less fortunate 9% indi- cated that their salary levels remaining static or decreasing. Our final questions involved IAVM Membership status. It was a delight to learn that 40% of reporting venues possess an IAVM Group Membership. For those buildings answering that they did not have a group membership, we asked for the number of IAVM members they currently have on staff. The largest response was one IAVM member (44%), followed by two individual members (23%), and then four individual members (21%). These survey results should provide university venue managers with a much clearer idea of the overall profile and personality of our sector. The Universities Committee hopes to expand this research effort in the coming years. In closing, we extend our sin- cerest gratitude to the IAVM Research Committee/VenueData- Source and the IAVM Foundation, without whom this project would not have been made possible. FM


   


CVE Application Deadline is November 1st!


Contact Rosanne Duke at rosanne.duke@iavm.org or 972.538.1025


IAVM 51


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