Commercial sensitivity is a silly comment

As public reaction to the stadium build and the building’s operation continues you get the odd whimsical comment in the daily newspaper – probably written by ‘Max’, who else?

### ODT Online Comments
Right to know?
Submitted by Xpert on Tue, 29/11/2011 – 6:19am.
To respond to russand bev’s [sic] comment, you have no right to know the financials of a concert like Elton John. The venue was hired by the promoter on commercial terms and any cost/negotiation is commercially sensitive in what is a highly competative [sic] industry. To be honest the promoter should be compensated for bringing over $6.5 million dollars into the Dunedin economy, setting a high standard for the venue and the city for future events and marketing the city which has been dull ‘concertwise’ befre [sic] the event. Ratepayers should be greatful [sic] to the promoter and the venue for putting Dunedin back on the map and back in the 21 [sic] century.
ODT Link

****

### ODT Online Comments
Who got what?
Submitted by russandbev on Mon, 28/11/2011 – 10:07am.
I am pleased that there were a large number of people that enjoyed the Elton John concert on Friday night. What does need to be now quantified is who made money out of the concert and who didn’t.
Read more

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

6 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Concerts, DCC, Design, DVL, DVML, Economics, Events, Media, Politics, Project management, Site, Stadiums

6 responses to “Commercial sensitivity is a silly comment

  1. Love all the comments about all the money that came to town. It was about the worst weekend for retailers out my way…..

    • Elizabeth

      wirehunt, the concept and reality of redistributed wealth hasn’t really sunk in for the vast majority of people arguing for the stadium’s ‘economic benefits’ – due to a sad lack of education in the basic realities of life, given no tertiary degree is needed for the comprehension

  2. Elizabeth

    Search engine term at What if? today: “the grinch on sled with max towing it”

  3. Phil

    I don’t know what the official attendee demographics were, but it’s safe to assume a few factors about the concertgoers. Given the artist and the price of the tickets, there was would not have been a lot of students or beer swilling rugby heads in attendance. So that rules out the big aftermatch vomit sessions in the Octagon bars. Most people would have gone straight home afterwards. It can also be assumed that around 90% of all attendees lived within a one-hour drive of the stadium. Which rules out money into the local accommodation economy. Again, they went straight home afterwards. We know that the stadium received less than $100,000 from Capital C Concerts for the night. So that’s the extent of the cash injection into the local public economy. That’s the hospitality, accommodation, and public funding areas accounted for. $6.5 million ? Must have sold a shitload of programmes.

  4. Hype O'Thermia

    All the “profit” stories, all the good news stories about extra money coming into Dunedin’s economy, seem to assume that whatever is spent in Dunedin at the Fubar functions, at bars, on accommodation, is money that was not in Dunedin to start with. True, some of it was in the rest of Otago – so what we can truly say is that some hinterland spending has been transferred to Dunedin, along with Dunedin spending having been shifted from one place to another.
    Deck chairs.
    Titanic.
    “Sinkety sankety sunk!” the cockroach said.

  5. Hype O'Thermia

    This from http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10769199 is SUCH good thinking, such a smart way of stepping outside ra-rah don’t-be-a-naysayer, we’ve-got-to-have-progress pressures, I’ve simply got to share it:
    “So much for post-mortems. They have their uses, of course, but as the losers wallow in their mistakes and the winners bask in their victories, it might help to look forward and reflect on the more constructive “pre-mortems” that the psychologist Gary Klein suggests as a way to make important decisions.
    The pre-mortem asks decision-makers to pause before committing themselves to an important decision, and imagine a scenario where the outcome of that decision a year or so down the track has been a disaster. Then take five minutes to write a brief history of that disaster.
    In doing so, writes Daniel Kahneman in Thinking, Fast and Slow, they may well discover that the decision has been made too hastily. The main virtue of the pre-mortem is that it “legitimises doubt”, particularly where group think is a danger.
    The pre-mortem reduces the biases of uncritical optimism.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s