As put to 3,600 selected respondents (300 a month) by San Francisco-based GLS Research, the question was "Not including travel, food, or lodging, how much money did you budget for gambling on this trip? Include only your own, personal gambling budget and not the gambling budgets of others who may have been with you." Thus, the question addressed the entire span of a visit and potential sum wagered which, to the respondents, is likely distinct from coin-in (which includes wagers made "reinvesting" credits from winning bets) and from outright losses (unless respondents construed "budget" as "the amount you are prepared to lose," which was not the exact intent of the survey question, but could be how it was interpreted by some).
Only 10 percent of those "somewhat satisfied" with Vegas cited not winning enough at the casinos as their primary source of dissatisfaction – the plurality were disgruntled that their trip wasn't longer. Gambling spending was actually way up: In 2011, survey respondents budgeted 'only' $447.63 per trip. They also went through their wallet at little less quickly: Half spent two hours or less gambling, compared to 60 percent the year before.
Twelve percent planned to wager $500-$599 per visit, while 30 percent were in the top bracket of "$600 or higher." Hence, the study's mean number of $578.54. By contrast, only 31 percent of respondents fell into the $0-$199 range. With numbers like those, gambling's imminent demise in Las Vegas has evidently been exaggerated. Besides, 80 percent said the presence of regional casinos made "no difference" on their decision to gamble in Sin City (for an interesting survey on this subject, check the results of a recent Reader Poll we ran). However, the number of visitors who gambled comprised 73 percent of respondents, down from 2011's 77 percent.
While 82 percent planned to do their gambling on the Strip, a significant subset also planned to patronize downtown Las Vegas (31 percent) or off-Strip casinos like the Rio (16 percent). The big downtown draw, however, is still the Fremont Street Experience, cited by 59 percent of metropolitan visitors as the main attraction and dwarfing all other considerations. Lounge attractions outdrew production shows, 44 percent to 25 percent, and only 5 percent of visitors professed to having patronized a nightclub with a cover charge, a decline from previous years, with a sizable plurality (44 percent) preferring bars or lounges without cover charges. Water parks and roller coasters were also on the upswing in popularity, which is good news for Steve Wynn.
Casino floors weren't the only places where visitors were planning to open their wallets, budgeting $292 per person on dining, across an average of four days and three nights. With numbers like those, one can readily see why food is no longer a loss-leader in Las Vegas now that even the buffet can be a costly proposition. Fortunately, 21 percent of visitors make between $100,000 and $150,000 a year.
Tourist demographics skewed toward skilled professionals and college graduates. Despite Las Vegas' reputation as a singles magnet, 79 percent of those surveyed were married. Also, despite the importance of international customers, 84 percent of those visiting Vegas were from within the United States. Vegas has some work to do on the diversity of its appeal, drawing an 85 percent white clientele. (2015's numbers were actually a backslide from the two previous years in this area.) The mean age of visitors may be a little less gray, but is still firmly middle-aged: 47.7 years old. The 21-to-29-year-old party crowd was actually the second-smallest age bracket, 12 percent, with only visitors from 60 to 64 representing a smaller tranche (9 percent).
Respondents "were intercepted in the vicinity of Las Vegas casinos, hotels, motels, and RV parks. To assure a random selection of visitors, different locations were utilized on each interviewing day." And apparently, those polled received a lovely parting gift for their participation in the annual survey.
