During the presentation at the BCC meeting, prior to the vote being taken by the BCC four questions should have been asked:
1. How many times did this ad firm perform rebranding of a tourist destination that did not result in negative tourist over night stay impact?
2. How much money did the county spend last year on promoting the Beaches of South Walton brand during and after the BP spill?
3. How will this past advertising investment of the brand going to be leveraged by the new brand and its associated marketing expenditures (TV commercials, print ads, etc)?
4. What is the estimated negative economic impact on the county tourism going to be during, and after, the old brand 's use is discontinued and until the new brand "soaks in".
In fact, the whole set of "statistics" presented by the ad firm should have been called into question. At a BCC meeting, it is easy to skip over such "business" details.
I would have posed these questions at the meeting, but before I knew it, the vote was being taken without any public comment on the matter being requested.
This is an example where the county commissioners are being given bad "business" information before making a decision. What I believe I observed was pure manipulation.
Just because the TDC can apply for and obtain BP money, does not mean that it has the ability to pull this "re-branding" off without negatively impacting the tourism industry.
The 8 million from BP would be better spent by promoting the local "town" brands (i.e. Rosemary, Miramar, Seagrove, San Destin, etc. etc.) versus trying to come up with a new brand for our beaches. At least our county's visitors, "would know where they are".
Unless the TDC wants to go with a different branding suggestion like:
"Come to the Walton Riviera - You will have the time of your life"
Ad Copy: Entertain yourself by watching our local TDC gamble county money away while you get a tan on our sugar white beaches. Be rest assured, nothing will entertain your more, unless you are a county tax payer.