Its that time of year again – when Victoria hands over the park and the money to Bernie Ecclestone, Bernie demands more, taxpayers complain and the Vic government bends over. Our review of the Grand Prix economic assessment has been getting some attention, with Rod on Save Albert Park’s 3CR radio show, ABC local radio and a letter in The Age.
Under cost benefit analysis the GP has a negative net present value for Victoria – this hasn’t been contested for years. The fig leaf of economic credibility the GP is given by its supporters is its value in promoting Melbourne to global TV viewers. Tourism Victoria claims this has a value of $35.6 million, referencing a 2009 commissioned report by Comperio Research (whose website has been “under construction” for at least a year). The Comperio report has never been released, so last week we launched Ecolarge’s first Freedom of Information application. We’re looking forward to comparing it with an independent report by F1 industry watchers Formula Money which suggests Melbourne gets a mere $262,000 worth of exposure. Stay tuned!
Wow, read your ‘review’. And you are hinting E&Y and Tourism Vic are biased! Give me a break! It’s lacking in any substantial statistical rebuttal of the E&Y report. Basically picked up on a few areas of improvement in survey methodology (based on assumptions as you didn’t have access), drew your own statistically unsupported assumptions (ie. the 3.5 error) based on one ‘disparity’. One single disparity does not a conclusion make. You might consider yourselves good economists, but your are definitely poor statisticians. I actually don’t like the GP and was looking here for some robust, independant research. Horribly disappointed.
George, I think you’ve missed the point of the report.
The point is not that E&Y have fudged the numbers – although they overstate retained expenditure by approximately 3.5x – the point is that they are the wrong sort of numbers. You missed the bit where I explain the need for cost-benefit analysis, supported by economic literature, every treasury in the country and pointed out by E&Y themselves.
I’ll try to put it statistically – I conclude, with 100% probability, that zero percent of recent GP economic studies (n=1) include the appropriate methodology for economic assessment of events.
Out of interest, George, as a statistician, how would you have approached this exercise?
Unable to download the full publication form the website at the moment.
Keen to see details of the glaring differences between the Vago and Eco at Large Report.
Not quite sure about the Media exposure figure either? Must be a definition issue, when the EY report clearly stated a high percentage of interstate and international travelers who came to Melbourne during that period incorporated the F1 GP into their itinerary. I think a robust definition of media exposure be examined (if i could read the report) as I would be keen to see if it incorporated a ‘time period’ since in essence, there would be a lag to see the material difference.