LAS VEGAS VISITOR PROFILE

LAS VGAS VISITOR PROFIL Research that works. 555 Montgomery Street Suite 6 San Francisco, CA 9 Telephone: (5) 9-785 Facsimile: (5) 9-766 www.glsresearch.com San Francisco Los Angeles Las Vegas Moscow, Russia Fiscal Year 22 Annual Report July, 2 to June, 22 Prepared for: Las Vegas Convention And Visitors Authority By: GLS Research

ACKNOWLDGMNTS The Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority and GLS Research extend thanks to the Las Vegas community for their cooperation on this research project. Special appreciation is noted for cooperation and assistance received from the hotel, motel, and casino industry. Appreciation is also extended to the interviewers and Las Vegas visitors, without whose dedicated cooperation this study could not have been completed. VISITOR PROFIL STUDY LAS VGAS CONVNTION AND VISITORS AUTHORITY XCUTIV STAFF President Manuel J. Cortez xecutive Vice President Rossi T. Ralenkotter Senior Vice President of Administration. James Gans Senior Vice President of Marketing Terry M. Jicinsky Senior Vice President of Operations Thomas A. Smith Vice President of Sales Nancy Murphy Vice President of Human Resources Mark D. Olson Vice President of Public Relations Robert F. Powers Legal Counsel Luke Puschnig MARKTING RSARCH STAFF Director of Internet Marketing and Research Kevin M. Bagger Research Analyst Gina Zozaya LAS VGAS CONVNTION AND VISITORS AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRCTORS DCMBR 22 COMMISSIONR MARY J. KINCAID-CHAUNCY Chair MR. ROBRT FORBUSS Vice-Chair MAYOR OSCAR GOODMAN Secretary-Treasurer COMMISSIONR YVONN ATKINSON-GATS MR.. DWARD CRISPLL MR. LORNZO FRTITTA MAYOR JAMS GIBSON CITY OF MSQUIT (VACANT POSITION) MR. WILLIAM HORNBUCKL MR. WILLIAM P. McBATH COUNCILMAN MICHAL J. McDONALD MAYOR PRO TM WILLIAM ROBINSON MR. TONY SANTO 5 Paradise Road Las Vegas, NV 899-996 (72) 892-7 vegasfreedom.com visitlaughlin.com visitmesquite.com ii

TABL OF CONTNTS Page XCUTIV SUMMARY... INTRODUCTION... 2 MTHODOLOGY... SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Reasons For Visiting... 5 Travel Planning... 25 Trip Characteristics And xpenditures... Gaming Behavior And Budgets... 6 ntertainment... 77 Attitudinal Information... 8 Visitor Demographics... 87 APPNDIX Questionnaire With Aggregate Results For 22 iii

TABL OF FIGURS Page RASONS FOR VISITING FIGUR : First Visit vs. Repeat Visit...5 FIGUR 2: Frequency Of Visits In Past Five Years...6 FIGUR : Frequency Of Visits In Past Five Years (Repeat Visitors)...7 FIGUR : Frequency Of Visits In Past Year...8 FIGUR 5: Frequency Of Visits In Past Year (Repeat Visitors)...9 FIGUR 6: Primary Purpose Of Current Visit...2 FIGUR 7: Primary Purpose Of First Visit (Repeat Visitors)...2 FIGUR 8: Primary Purpose Of Current Visit (Repeat Visitors)...22 FIGUR 9: Primary Purpose Of Current Visit (First-Time vs. Repeat)...2 FIGUR : Conventions/Trade Shows/Corporate Meetings...2 TRAVL PLANNING FIGUR : Advance Travel Planning...25 FIGUR 2: Transportation To Las Vegas...26 FIGUR : Local Transportation...27 FIGUR : Taxi Usage And Satisfaction...28 FIGUR 5: When Decided Where To Stay...29 FIGUR 6: When Decided Where To Gamble... FIGUR 7: When Decided Which Shows To See... FIGUR 8: Travel Agent Assistance...2 FIGUR 9: Travel Agent Influence And Use... FIGUR 2: Whether Used The Internet To Plan Trip... FIGUR 2: Internet Influence And Use...5 FIGUR 22: Whether Visited Downtown Las Vegas...6 FIGUR 2: Main Reason For Visiting Downtown...7 FIGUR 2: Why Did Not Visit Downtown Las Vegas...8 FIGUR 25: Visits To Nearby Places...9 FIGUR 26: Other Nearby Places Visited... TRIP CHARACTRISTICS AND XPNDITURS FIGUR 27: Adults In Immediate Party... FIGUR 28: Number Of Persons In Party Under Age 2...2 FIGUR 29: Age Breakdown Of Visitors Under 2 In Immediate Party... FIGUR : Number Of Persons In Party Under Age 2 By Quarter... FIGUR : Nights Stayed...5 FIGUR 2: Days Stayed...5 FIGUR : Weekend Versus Weekday Arrival...6 FIGUR : Type Of Lodging...7 FIGUR 5: Location Of Lodging...8 FIGUR 6: Advance Booking Of Accommodations...9 iv

TABL OF FIGURS (Continued/2) Page FIGUR 7: Type of Room Rates... 5 FIGUR 8: Package Purchasers... 5 FIGUR 9: Cost Of Package Per Person... 52 FIGUR : Difference In The Cost Of The Package Hotel/Airline vs. Tour/Travel Group... 5 FIGUR : Packages Including Airfare... 5 FIGUR 2: Whether Package Was Purchased Directly From A Hotel... 55 FIGUR : Where First Heard About The Package... 56 FIGUR : Lodging xpenditures Average Per Night... 57 FIGUR 5: Number Of Room Occupants... 58 FIGUR 6: Average Trip xpenditures On Food & Drink And On Local Transportation (Including Visitors Who Spent Nothing)... 59 FIGUR 7: Average Trip xpenditures On Food & Drink And On Local Transportation (Among Spenders)... 6 FIGUR 8: Average Trip xpenditures On Shopping, Shows, And Sightseeing (Including Visitors Who Spent Nothing)... 6 FIGUR 9: Average Trip xpenditures On Shopping, Shows, And Sightseeing (Among Spenders)... 62 FIGUR 5: Where Shopped While In Las Vegas... 6 GAMING BHAVIOR AND BUDGTS FIGUR 5: Whether Gambled While In Las Vegas... 6 FIGUR 52: Main Reason For Not Gambling... 65 FIGUR 5: Hours Of Gambling Average Per Day... 66 FIGUR 5: Number Of Casino Properties Visited... 67 FIGUR 55: Number Of Properties Where Gambled... 68 FIGUR 56: Where Visitors Gambled... 69 FIGUR 57: Casino Game Played Most Often... 7 FIGUR 58: Machine Denomination Played Most Often... 7 FIGUR 59: Average Coins/Tokens Per Play... 72 FIGUR 6: Table Minimum Played Most Often... 7 FIGUR 6: Average Bet Table Games... 7 FIGUR 62: Trip Gambling Budget... 75 FIGUR 6: Likelihood Of Visiting Las Vegas With More Places To Gamble Outside Las Vegas... 76 NTRTAINMNT FIGUR 6: ntertainment Attendance... 77 FIGUR 65: Types Of ntertainment... 78 FIGUR 66: Average Number Of Shows Attended... 79 FIGUR 67: Main Reason For Not Attending More Shows... 8 v

TABL OF FIGURS (Continued/) Page FIGUR 68: Main Reason For Not Attending Any Shows...8 FIGUR 69: Whether Have Been To Other Paid Attractions...82 FIGUR 7: Whether Played Golf...8 ATTITUDINAL INFORMATION FIGUR 7: Satisfaction With Visit...8 FIGUR 72: Why Not Completely Satisfied With Visit...85 FIGUR 7: Why Dissatisfied With Visit...86 VISITOR DMOGRAPHICS FIGUR 7: Visitor Demographics...87 Gender...87 Marital Status...87 mployment...87 ducation...87 Age...87 FIGUR 75: Visitor Demographics...88 thnicity...88 Household Income...88 Place Of Origin...88 vi

XCUTIV SUMMARY The Las Vegas Visitor Profile Study is conducted monthly during the fiscal year and reported annually to provide an ongoing assessment of the Las Vegas visitor and trends in visitor behavior over time. This report presents the findings from the, personal interviews conducted by GLS Research from July, 2 to June, 22*. Approximately 275 inperson interviews were conducted per month in or near Las Vegas hotel-casinos and motels. This report presents the results of the 22 study, as well as the four previous years 998, 999, 2, and 2. Statistically significant differences in the behavior, attitudes, and opinions of visitors from year to year are pointed out in the text of the report. Throughout this report, if data is not presented for all five years, it is because the question was not asked all five years. When we note that a difference between subgroups on a particular measure is significant or statistically significant, we mean that there is a 95% or better chance that the difference is the result of true differences between the subgroup populations and is not due to sampling error alone. When we note that a difference between subgroups is not significant or not statistically significant, we mean that there is less than a 95% chance that the difference is the result of true differences between the subgroups. This section presents the research highlights. The findings are presented in detail beginning on page 5. All visitor profile data are gathered on a fiscal year basis. Hence, the 22 Las Vegas Visitor Profile Study represents data gathered from July 2 through June 22 and may reflect effects from the events of September, 2.

Page 2 GLS Research Las Vegas Visitor Profile Fiscal Year 22 RASONS FOR VISITING XCUTIV SUMMARY One in five respondents (2%) were first-time visitors to Las Vegas, about the same as the last two years but significantly fewer than in 998, and 999. Fiftysix percent (56%) of respondents said their primary reason for visiting Las Vegas this trip was vacation or pleasure, about the same as last year but significantly fewer than in 998, 999, and 2. Sixty-two percent (62%) of first-time visitors, and 5% of repeat visitors, said the primary purpose of their current visit was for vacation or pleasure, about the same proportions for both groups as last year, but down significantly from the proportions for both groups in 998, 999, and 2. The average number of visits over the past five years was 5.8, down from the average of 6.8 in 2 and 6.7 in 2. The average number of visits in the past year was.7, equal to the average number of visits in 999 but down from 2. in 2 and.9 in both 998 and 2. The frequency of visits in the past year among repeat visitors was.8, down from an average of 2. visits in 999 and 2.2 visits in 998, 2, and 2. SUMMARY TABL OF RASONS FOR VISITING AND VISITATION FRQUNCY 998 999 2 2 22 Proportion of respondents who were first-time visitors 25% 26% 2% 2% 2% Proportion of respondents whose primary purpose for current trip was vacation or pleasure 6% 69% 68% 57% 56% Proportion of first-time visitors whose primary purpose for current trip was vacation or pleasure 72% 75% 75% 6% 62% Proportion of repeat visitors whose primary purpose for current trip was vacation or pleasure 62% 67% 66% 55% 5% Proportion of respondents whose primary purpose for current trip was to gamble 7% 5% 6% 8% 6% Average number of visits in past five years 6. 6. 6.8 6.7 5.8 Average number of visits in past year.9.7 2..9.7

GLS Research Page Fiscal Year 22 Las Vegas Visitor Profile TRAVL PLANNING XCUTIV SUMMARY Fifty-six percent of visitors (56%) arrived via ground transportation, and % arrived by air. Use of hotel/motel shuttles rose to one-quarter (25%) as visitors means of local transportation while walking (9%) likewise increased significantly. Taxi usage (2%) remained about the same compared to one year ago. One in six (7%) visitors used rental cars, down from two in ten (2%) one year ago. Most visitors (92%) continued to decide where to lodge in Las Vegas before leaving home. Three-quarters (75%) of visitors decided where to gamble after arriving in Las Vegas, representing an increase over the past four years, and eight in ten (8%) decided what shows to see after arriving, the same as last year but a significant decline from about nine in ten visitors in 998 through 2. The proportion of visitors who reported using a travel agent in planning their trip to Las Vegas (22%) continued to steadily decline. For the third consecutive year, we asked visitors if they used the Internet to plan their trip and one-quarter (2%) said they had done so, about the same as the previous year but up from 2% in 2. Sixty-four percent (6%) of those that planned travel online said they used the Internet to book accommodations and more than one-half (5%) said the Internet influenced their choice in accommodations. Both figures are up significantly over the two previous years. One-half (5%) used the Internet to book transportation, also continuing a significant increase over the past two years. ight percent (8%) said the Internet influenced their decision to visit Las Vegas, the same as last year, but twice as many as in 2 (%). Forty-four percent (%) visited Downtown Las Vegas, down substantially from the past four years. Visiting the Fremont Street xperience (55%) remains the main reason cited by respondents for visiting Downtown Las Vegas, not significantly changed from last year but up slightly from 998 through 2 figures. One in ten (%) who went Downtown did so to gamble, down from the peak of % in 2 but comparable to other years. One in six (7%) visitors also toured other nearby places, down significantly from the past four years.

Page GLS Research Las Vegas Visitor Profile Fiscal Year 22 SUMMARY TABL OF TRAVL PLANNING CHARACTRISTICS 998 999 2 2 22 Proportion of respondents who traveled to Las Vegas by ground transportation (automobile/bus/rv) 5% 55% 5% 52% 56% Proportion of respondents who traveled to Las Vegas by air 6% 6% 6% 8% % Proportion of respondents who used their own vehicle when traveling around Las Vegas 2% % 2% % 2% Proportion of respondents who reported walking when traveling around Las Vegas 26% 2% % 22% 9% Proportion of respondents who used taxis when traveling around Las Vegas 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% Proportion of respondents who decided where to lodge in Las Vegas before leaving home (among those who stayed overnight) 92% 92% 9% 9% 92% Proportion of respondents who decided where to gamble in Las Vegas after arrival (among gamblers) 7% 66% 66% 7% 75% Proportion of respondents who decided which shows to see in Las Vegas after arrival (among those who saw a show) 88% 89% 9% 8% 8% Proportion of respondents who used the assistance of a travel agent in planning their trip to Las Vegas 7% % % 29% 22% Proportion who used the Internet to plan trip NA NA 2% 25% 2% Proportion of those who used the Internet who said they did so to book accommodations NA NA % 52% 6% Proportion of those who used the Internet who said they did so to book transportation NA NA 27% 6% 5% Proportion of those who used the Internet who said it influenced their choice in accommodations NA NA 9% % 5% Proportion of those who used the Internet who said it influenced their decision to visit Las Vegas NA NA % 8% 8% Proportion of respondents who visited Downtown Las Vegas on their current trip 55% 6% 58% 52% % Proportion of respondents who toured nearby places 25% 25% 22% 2% 7%

GLS Research Page 5 Fiscal Year 22 Las Vegas Visitor Profile TRIP CHARACTRISTICS AND XPNDITURS XCUTIV SUMMARY The average number of people in visitors immediate party was 2.6 adults, up from the average of 2. the past two years but the same as in 998 and 999. One in ten (%) had children under the age of 2 in their immediate party, down from 2% last year. Virtually all (99.5%) visitors stayed overnight. Average stays were. nights and. days, down significantly from the averages recorded in 999, 2, and 2. Among overnighters, 95% stayed in a hotel or motel with an average of 2. room occupants. Visitors spent an average of $7.76 per night for lodging (non-package purchasers), lower than the peak of $85. recorded last year but still significantly higher than the average daily rates recorded in 998 and 999. One-quarter (25%) of visitors paid a regular room rate, down significantly from 7% in 998, 5% in 999, and % in 2. Nineteen percent (9%) purchased a package trip, down significantly compared to the past four years. The number of visitors who received non-tour group packages (%) declined compared to the past four years, while the proportion who received tour group packages (7%) increased compared to past years. The average cost of a package ($.69) decreased substantially from average package costs reported over the past four years $8.5 in 998, $5.98 in 999, $59. in 2, and $96.9 in 2. Spending in nearly all categories decreased significantly compared to 2. Over the course of their entire stay in Las Vegas, visitors spent an average of $9.92 for food and drink, down significantly from the peak of $2.7 in 2 but still higher than the averages recorded in 998 ($.8) and 999 ($7.52). Visitors spent an average of $5.6 for local transportation, also down from the past two years ($6. in 2 and $6.62 in 2). Visitors spent an average of $8.5 for shopping, a significant drop from last year ($6.75) but in line with figures from 998 through 2. Visitors spent an average of $9.5 for sightseeing, a significant decline from 2 ($7.), but still higher than the average expenditures on this item in 998 ($5.) and 999 ($5.67). The only category in which spending did not decline was for shows: visitors spent an average of $.79 in this category, about the same as last year ($5.5), but still higher than in 998 through 2.

Page 6 GLS Research Las Vegas Visitor Profile Fiscal Year 22 SUMMARY TABL OF TRIP CHARACTRISTICS AND XPNDITURS 998 999 2 2 22 Average number of adults in immediate party 2.6 2.6 2. 2. 2.6 Proportion of respondents with persons under 2 in their immediate party % 2% % 2% % Proportion of respondents who stayed overnight 99.% 99.6% 99.6% 99.8% 99.5% Days stayed (average)..7.7.6. Nights stayed (average)..7.7.6. Proportion of respondents who stayed in a hotel or motel room (among those who stayed overnight) 9% 9% 95% 95% 95% Number of room occupants (average hotel/motel only) 2. 2.2 2. 2. 2. Lodging expenditures (average per night, hotel/motel overnight visitors only excludes package and tour/travel group visitors) $65.5 $66.86 $7. $85. $7.76 Proportion of respondents who paid a regular room rate (among those who stayed overnight in a hotel or motel) 7% 5% 27% % 25% Proportion of visitors who bought a hotel or airline package or traveled as part of a tour/travel group where accommodations were included (among those who stayed overnight in a hotel or motel) 27% 25% 22% 2% 9% Average cost of package per person (among package/tour group visitors) $8.5 $5.98 $59. $96.9 $.69 Average trip expenditures for food and drink (all respondents) $.8 $7.76 $87.2 $2.7 $9.92 Average trip expenditures for local transport (all respondents) $8. $57. $6. $6.62 $5.6 Average trip expenditures for shopping (all respondents) $79.88 $87.9 $9. $6.75 $8.5 Average trip expenditures for shows (all respondents) $28.2 $.8 $8.9 $5.5 $.79 Average trip expenditures for sightseeing (all respondents) $5. $5.67 $9.6 $7. $9.5

GLS Research Page 7 Fiscal Year 22 Las Vegas Visitor Profile GAMING BHAVIOR AND BUDGTS XCUTIV SUMMARY Nearly nine in ten (89%) visitors gambled while in Las Vegas, up significantly over the previous four years. These visitors budgeted an average of $5. per trip for gambling, down significantly from the average gambling budgets for 999 through 2. Gamblers spent an average of.7 hours per day gambling, lower than the past four years. Seventy-four percent (7%) played slot machines or video machines most often (up from last year but about the same as in 998 through 2); among these respondents, two-thirds (67%) played quarter machines most often (about the same as in the past two years but down from 998 and 999), with an average number of coins/tokens per play of.9 (about the same as last year but up substantially from 998 through 2). As in past years, about one in five (2%) visitors who gambled played table games most often. One-half (5%) of these respondents played $5. minimums most often, a slight increase from the low of 5% recorded last year. Visitors who played table games played an average bet of $., a significant decline from the average of $9.2 last year, but comparable with figures from 998 through 2. Forty-five percent (5%) said they would be more likely to visit Las Vegas again even with the wider gambling choices available to them. This figure was up from all previous years readings, including 2% in 998, 7% in 999, 22% in 2, and 5% in 2.

Page 8 GLS Research Las Vegas Visitor Profile Fiscal Year 22 SUMMARY TABL OF GAMING BHAVIOR AND BUDGTS 998 999 2 2 22 Proportion who gambled while visiting Las Vegas 87% 87% 85% 86% 89% Average number of hours per day spent gambling (among those who gambled)..9..8.7 Average trip gambling budget (among those who gambled) $69.29 $559.6 $665.2 $67.27 $5. Proportion who played slot machines/video machines most often (among those who gambled) 75% 75% 75% 72% 7% Proportion who played quarter machines most often (among those who played slot/video machines most often) 7% 7% 69% 65% 67% Average number of coins/tokens per play (among those who played slot/video machines most often) 2.7..2.7.9 Proportion who played table games most often (among those who gambled) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% Proportion who played $5. table minimums most often (among those who played table games most often) 57% 55% 5% 5% 5% Average bet (among those who played table games most often) $.6 $. $.6 $9.2 $. Proportion who said they would be more likely to visit Las Vegas even with more places to gamble outside Las Vegas (among all visitors) 2% 7% 22% 5% 5%

GLS Research Page 9 Fiscal Year 22 Las Vegas Visitor Profile NTRTAINMNT XCUTIV SUMMARY Two-thirds (66%) of visitors attended shows during their trip to Las Vegas a substantial increase over the past four years. Four in seven (57%) of these visitors went to a Las Vegas style production show, down significantly from the past four years, while 69% attended lounge acts, a substantial increase over previous years. Fifteen percent (5%) saw a big-name headliner show (up from 998, 999, and 2), while 2% went to a comedy show (up over the past three years). Only 2% played golf while visiting Las Vegas, a figure comparable with 998 through 2. SUMMARY TABL OF NTRTAINMNT ACTIVITIS 998 999 2 2 22 Proportion who attended any shows during their current stay in Las Vegas % 8% 8% 58% 66% Proportion who attended production shows (among those who attended shows) 7% 75% 7% 65% 57% Proportion who attended lounge acts (among those who attended shows) % % % 9% 69% Proportion who went to other paid attractions in Las Vegas 2% 2% 2% 2% % Proportion who played golf while in Las Vegas 2% 2% 2% % 2% ATTITUDINAL INFORMATION XCUTIV SUMMARY As in previous years, the vast majority of visitors (97%) reported being very satisfied with their trip to Las Vegas. Among respondents who said they were only somewhat satisfied with their trip, 5% said they didn t win enough, and % complained about their hotel. SUMMARY TABL OF ATTITUDINAL INFORMATION 998 999 2 2 22 Proportion who were very satisfied with their current trip to Las Vegas 95% 96% 96% 96% 97% Proportion who complained about not winning enough money (among those who were somewhat satisfied ) 2% 6% 9% 8% 5% Proportion who complained about their hotel (among those who were somewhat satisfied ) 5% 2% 9% % %

Page GLS Research Las Vegas Visitor Profile Fiscal Year 22 VISITOR DMOGRAPHICS XCUTIV SUMMARY About two-thirds (67%) of visitors were years old or over (the same as last year but down from 7% in 998 and 7% in 999 and 2), with an average age of 7.6 years (down significantly from 998, 999, and 2). As in past years, seven in ten (7%) respondents were married. Thirty-four percent (%) were from California, up from % the past three years. Fifty-four percent (5%) had a household income of $, or more (down from each of the past four years), 27% were retired, and 27% had a high school education or less (down compared to 998 through 2). The proportion of foreign visitors was 8% this year, down significantly from % in 998 and 2, % in 999, and 2% in 2. SUMMARY TABL OF NOTABL VISITOR DMOGRAPHICS 998 999 2 2 22 Proportion of respondents who were years old or older 7% 7% 7% 67% 67% Average age 9.2 9.9 5. 8.2 7.6 Proportion of respondents who were married 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% Proportion of respondents with a household income of $, or more 6% 6% 65% 59% 5% Proportion of respondents who were retired 27% 28% 28% 25% 27% Proportion of respondents with a high school diploma or less % 5% 8% 7% 27% Proportion of respondents from California 2% % % % % Proportion of respondents from a foreign country % % % 2% 8%

GLS Research Page Fiscal Year 22 Las Vegas Visitor Profile SUMMARY OF CONOMIC IMPACT FACTORS XCUTIV SUMMARY The following table summarizes the various factors included throughout this report related to the economic impact of Las Vegas visitors between July, 2, and June, 22 the time period covered by this report: SUMMARY TABL OF CONOMIC IMPACT FACTORS 998 999 2 2 22 Days stayed (average)..7.7.6. Nights stayed (average)..7.7.6. Proportion of respondents who stayed overnight 99.% 99.6% 99.6% 99.8% 99.5% Proportion of respondents who stayed in a hotel or motel room (among those who stayed overnight) 9% 9% 95% 95% 95% Lodging expenditures (average per night, hotel/motel overnight visitors only excludes package and tour/travel group visitors) $65.5 $66.86 $7. $85. $7.76 Proportion of visitors who bought a hotel or airline package or traveled as part of a tour/travel group where accommodations were included (among those who stayed overnight in a hotel or motel) 27% 25% 22% 2% 9% Average cost of package per person (among package/tour group visitors) $8.5 $5.98 $59. $96.9 $.69 Number of room occupants (average hotel/motel only) 2. 2.2 2. 2. 2. Average trip expenditures for food and drink (all respondents) $.8 $7.76 $87.2 $2.7 $9.92 Average trip expenditures for local transport (all respondents) $8. $57. $6. $6.62 $5.6 Average trip expenditures for shopping (all respondents) $79.88 $87.9 $9. $6.75 $8.5 Average trip expenditures for shows (all respondents) $28.2 $.8 $8.9 $5.5 $.79 Average trip expenditures for sightseeing (all respondents) $5. $5.67 $9.6 $7. $9.5 Proportion who gambled while visiting Las Vegas 87% 87% 85% 86% 89% Average trip gambling budget (among those who gambled) $69.29 $559.6 $665.2 $67.27 $5.

Page 2 GLS Research Las Vegas Visitor Profile Fiscal Year 22 INTRODUCTION The Las Vegas Visitor Profile Study is conducted monthly, and reported annually, to provide an ongoing assessment of the Las Vegas visitor and trends in visitor behavior over time. More specifically, the Las Vegas Visitor Profile aims: To provide a profile of Las Vegas visitors in terms of sociodemographic and behavioral characteristics. To monitor trends in visitor behavior and visitor characteristics. To supply detailed information on the vacation and gaming habits of different visitor groups, particularly gaming and non-gaming expenditures. To allow the identification of market segments and potential target markets. To provide a basis for calculating the economic impact of different visitor groups. To determine visitor satisfaction levels.

GLS Research Page Fiscal Year 22 Las Vegas Visitor Profile MTHODOLOGY In-person interviews were conducted with, randomly selected visitors. Approximately 275 interviews were conducted each month for 2 months from July 2 through June 22. Qualified survey respondents were visitors to Las Vegas (excluding residents of Clark County, Nevada) who were at least 2 years of age. In addition, only visitors who planned to leave Las Vegas within 2 hours were asked to complete the survey. Visitors 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 interviewing was conducted at different times of the day. Upon completion of the interview, visitors were given souvenirs as incentives. Verification procedures were conducted throughout the project to assure accurate and valid interviewing. Interviews were edited for completeness and accuracy, coded, and entered into a computerized database for analysis. The information was then analyzed using statistical software packages available to GLS Research. The questionnaire administered to visitors is appended to this report in the form of aggregate results. The results of the Las Vegas Visitor Profile have been weighted to more accurately reflect actual visitors to Las Vegas in terms of mode of transportation, lodging type, and lodging location. Specifically, the transportation data have been weighted based on a compilation of data provided by the LVCVA, McCarran International Airport, and the Nevada Department of Transportation. The figures used to weight the occupancy data are based on independent surveys conducted by the LVCVA, which provide the number of available rooms and occupancy rates for hotels and motels on a monthly basis. Throughout this report, bar charts are used to illustrate the data. The data presented in these charts are based on the total sample of, respondents for 22 and each of the preceding four years, unless otherwise specified. In charts using proportions, those proportions may not add to % because of rounding or because multiple responses were permitted. When we note that a difference between subgroups on a particular measure is significant or statistically significant, we mean that there is a 95% or better chance that the difference is the result of true differences between the subgroup populations and is not due to sampling error alone. When we note that a difference between subgroups is not significant or not statistically significant,

Page GLS Research Las Vegas Visitor Profile Fiscal Year 22 we mean that there is less than a 95% chance that the difference is the result of true differences between the subgroups. This report presents the results of the 22 study, as well as the four previous years 998, 999, 2, and 2. Statistically significant differences in the behavior, attitudes, and opinions of visitors from year to year are pointed out in the text of the report. Throughout this report, if data is not presented for all five years, it is because the question was not asked all five years. Details on the findings and conclusions of the survey are presented in the following sections of this report.

GLS Research Page 5 Fiscal Year 22 Las Vegas Visitor Profile RASONS FOR VISITING SUMMARY OF FINDINGS One-fifth (2%) of 22 visitors indicated they were first-time visitors to Las Vegas consistent with figures from 2 and 2 (2% each) but a significant decline from one-quarter who said they were first-time visitors in 998 (25%) and 999 (26%) (Figure ). FIGUR First Visit vs. Repeat Visit 9 75 7 8 79 8 P R C N T 6 First visit Repeat visit 25 26 2 2 2 998 999 2 2 22 FISCAL YAR

Page 6 GLS Research Las Vegas Visitor Profile Fiscal Year 22 FIGUR 2 Frequency Of Visits In Past Five Years (Among All Visitors) Fiscal Year 998 (Mean=6.) P R C N T 2 2 2 29 27 28 28 28 26 26 Fiscal Year 999 (Mean=6.) Fiscal Year 2 (Mean=6.8) Fiscal Year 2 (Mean=6.7) Fiscal Year 22 (Mean=5.8) 7 8 7 6 5 5 5 2 One Two to three Four to five Six to ten More than ten Among all visitors, the average number of visits to Las Vegas over the past five years was 5.8, down significantly from an average of 6.8 visits in 2 and 6.7 visits in 2 (Figure 2).

GLS Research Page 7 Fiscal Year 22 Las Vegas Visitor Profile FIGUR Frequency Of Visits In Past Five Years (Among Repeat Visitors) P R C N T 5 2 9 8 2 9 7 6 5 5 2 Fiscal Year 998 (Mean= 7.8; Base=276) Fiscal Year 999 (Mean= 7.8; Base=25) Fiscal Year 2 (Mean= 8.; Base=2625) Fiscal Year 2 (Mean= 8.2; Base=262) Fiscal Year 22 (Mean=6.9; Base=265) 2 22 2 2 2 9 89 8 8 6 6 7 7 One Two to three Four to five Six to ten More than ten In 22, repeat visitors to Las Vegas averaged 6.9 visits over the past five years. This figure is down significantly from the average number of visits in the past four years (7.8 in both998 and 999, 8. in 2, and 8.2 in 2) (Figure ).

Page 8 GLS Research Las Vegas Visitor Profile Fiscal Year 22 FIGUR Frequency Of Visits In Past Year (Among All Visitors) P R C N T 8 6 2 72 69 72 7 68 22 2 2 2 2 Fiscal Year 998 (Mean=.9) Fiscal Year 999 (Mean=.7) Fiscal Year 2 (Mean= 2.) Fiscal Year 2 (Mean=.9) Fiscal Year 22 (Mean=.7) 5 5 2 2 2 2 2 One Two to three Four to five Six to ten More than ten Among all visitors, the average number of visits to Las Vegas in the past 2 months was.7, equal to the average number of visits in 999, but down significantly from an average of 2. visits in 2 and.9 visits in 998 and 2 (Figure ).

GLS Research Page 9 Fiscal Year 22 Las Vegas Visitor Profile 75 FIGUR 5 Frequency Of Visits In Past Year (Among Repeat Visitors) P R C N T 5 25 65 6 59 62 59 28 28 25 Fiscal Year 998 (Mean=2.2; Base=276) Fiscal Year 999 (Mean=2.; Base=25) Fiscal Year 2 (Mean=2.2; Base=2625) Fiscal Year 2 (Mean=2.2; Base=262) Fiscal Year 22 (Mean=.8; Base=265) 6 7 5 6 6 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 One Two to three Four to five Six to ten More than ten Among repeat visitors, the average number of visits to Las Vegas during the past year was.8, down slightly from an average of 2. visits in 999, and down significantly from an average of 2.2 visits in 998, 2, and 2 (Figure 5).

Page 2 GLS Research Las Vegas Visitor Profile Fiscal Year 22 FIGUR 6 Primary Purpose Of Current Visit (Among All Visitors) Vacation/pleasure Other business To gamble Passing through Friends/relatives Convention/corporate meeting Special event Wedding Other 8 9 5 7 5 6 8 6 2 6 5 6 9 6 5 2 2 2 5 57 56 Fiscal Year 998 Fiscal Year 999 Fiscal Year 2 Fiscal Year 2 Fiscal Year 22 6 69 68 2 6 8 PRCNT When asked about the primary purpose of their current visit to Las Vegas, 56% mentioned vacation or pleasure, 2% mentioned a convention, trade show, or corporate meeting, % said they were visiting friends or relatives, and 6% said gambling (Figure 6). These figures were little changed from the previous year. However, the proportion of visitors mentioning vacation or pleasure was down significantly from 998 (6%), 999 (69%), and 2 (68%). Conversely, the number of visitors who said they were attending a convention or corporate meeting is considerably higher than in 998 and 999 (6% each) and also 2 (5%). The proportion who were visiting friends or relatives is also up significantly from 998 (6%), 999 (5%), and 2 (6%).

GLS Research Page 2 Fiscal Year 22 Las Vegas Visitor Profile FIGUR 7 Primary Purpose Of First Visit (Among Repeat Visitors) Vacation/pleasure Other business Convention/corporate meeting To gamble Friends/relatives Special event Wedding Passing through Other 5 7 6 6 7 9 8 7 5 8 9 2 2 2 2 6 5 2 57 Fiscal Year 998 (Base=276) Fiscal Year 999 (Base=25) Fiscal Year 2 (Base=2625) Fiscal Year 2 (Base=262) Fiscal Year 22 (Base=265) 66 66 65 7 2 6 8 PRCNT When asked about the primary purpose of their first visit to Las Vegas, nearly two-thirds (65%) of repeat visitors mentioned vacation or pleasure, up significantly from 57% last year but still down significantly from the peak of 7% in 999. The number of repeat visitors who said their visit was to attend a convention or corporate meeting (9%) continued to rise from last year (7%) and was up significantly over 998 (%), 999 (%), and 2 (%). The proportion of repeat visitors who mentioned gambling (7%) was down significantly from % in 998, 2, and 2. The proportion of repeat visitors who visited friends and relatives on their first trip (9%) was consistent with last year (8%) but was up significantly over % in 998 and 999, and 5% in 2 (Figure 7).

Page 22 GLS Research Las Vegas Visitor Profile Fiscal Year 22 FIGUR 8 Primary Purpose Of Current Visit (Among Repeat Visitors) Vacation/pleasure Other business Convention/corporate meeting To gamble Friends/relatives Special event Wedding Passing through Other 9 8 9 6 5 6 5 2 9 6 8 9 7 6 7 2 2 2 2 62 55 5 Fiscal Year 998 (Base=276) Fiscal Year 999 (Base=25) Fiscal Year 2 (Base=2625) Fiscal Year 2 (Base=262) Fiscal Year 22 (Base=265) 67 66 2 6 8 PRCNT The proportion of repeat visitors who said the primary purpose of their current visit to Las Vegas was vacation or pleasure (5%) was nearly the same as last year (55%) but down significantly from 998 (62%), 999 (67%), and 2 (66%). The number of repeat visitors who came to attend a convention or corporate meeting (2%) was also about the same as last year (%) but significantly higher compared to 998 (6%), 999 (5%), and 2 (%). The proportion who said they came to visit friends or relatives (2%) was about the same as the previous year (%) but higher than in 998 and 999 (6% each) and 2 (7%) (Figure 8).

GLS Research Page 2 Fiscal Year 22 Las Vegas Visitor Profile FIGUR 9 Primary Purpose Of Current Visit (First-Time Versus Repeat Visitors 22) Vacation/pleasure 5 62 Other business 5 Convention/corporate meeting 2 To gamble 2 7 Friends/relatives 2 First-Time Visitors Special event 2 Repeat Visitors Wedding Passing through Other 6 5 5 2 6 8 PRCNT The reasons given for current visits by both first-time and repeat visitors are presented in Figure 9. Repeat visitors were more likely than first-time visitors to say they their current trip to Las Vegas was to visit friends or relatives (2% vs. %), or to gamble (7% vs. 2%). First-time visitors were more likely than repeat visitors to say that they were visiting Las Vegas primarily for vacation or pleasure (62% vs. 5%).

Page 2 GLS Research Las Vegas Visitor Profile Fiscal Year 22 FIGUR Conventions/Trade Shows/Corporate Meetings 5 P R C N T 5 Fiscal Year 998 Fiscal Year 999 Fiscal Year 2 Fiscal Year 2 Fiscal Year 22 Respondents were asked if they had attended a convention, trade show, or corporate meeting while in Las Vegas (Figure ). The proportion of visitors who said they had (%) was about the same as last year (%) but up significantly from % in 998, 999, and 2.

GLS Research Page 25 Fiscal Year 22 Las Vegas Visitor Profile TRAVL PLANNING Travel planning varied broadly from same-day planning to trip planning more than 9 days in advance. ighty-seven percent (87%) of visitors planned their trips at least one week in advance (Figure ). The proportion of respondents planning their trip more than 9 days in advance (8%) is significantly lower than at any time in the past four years (2% in 998, 2% in 999, % in 2, and 27% in 2). However, the proportion planning their trip to 6 days in advance (5%) was up from 2% in each of the past four years, while the proportion planning their trip 7 to days in advance increased significantly to 2% from 5% in 998, % in 999, 2% in 2, and 8% in 2. FIGUR Advance Travel Planning Same day to days to 6 days 7 to days 5 to days to 6 days 6 to 9 days More than 9 days 2 2 6 6 5 5 7 7 2 5 5 8 2 2 9 9 6 7 8 8 2 2 Fiscal Year 998 Fiscal Year 999 Fiscal Year 2 Fiscal Year 2 Fiscal Year 22 2 2 2 26 27 7 2 28 5 PRCNT

Page 26 GLS Research Las Vegas Visitor Profile Fiscal Year 22 6 FIGUR 2 Transportation To Las Vegas P R C N T 2 8 6 6 6 Fiscal Year 998 Fiscal Year 999 Fiscal Year 2 Fiscal Year 2 Fiscal Year 22 8 7 8 8 Air Automobile Bus Recreational vehicle Other Forty-four percent (%) traveled to Las Vegas by air, down significantly from 8% in 2 but comparable to 998 through 2 levels (6%). The number of visitors who traveled to Las Vegas by automobile (%) was up significantly from last year (%). One in ten visitors (%) arrived by bus, up from 7% in 999, and 8% in 998, 2, and 2. Three percent (%) of visitors arrived in Las Vegas by recreational vehicle, down significantly from % in past years (Figure 2).

GLS Research Page 27 Fiscal Year 22 Las Vegas Visitor Profile Own vehicle Walked Taxi Rental car Bus Shuttle Monorail Limousine Other 2 5 6 7 FIGUR Local Transportation * 2 2 2 2 2 9 2 7 2 7 2 5 2 2 5 5 9 2 25 8 2 22 26 9 2 2 2 2 5 PRCNT Fiscal Year 998 Fiscal Year 999 Fiscal Year 2 Fiscal Year 2 Fiscal Year 22 More than four in ten visitors (2%) said that they used their own vehicles when traveling around Las Vegas, comparable to past years. One-quarter (25%) of visitors used a hotel or motel shuttle, up significantly from 5% in 998 and 999, 9% in 2, and 2% in 2. Another one-quarter (2%) used taxis, higher than in 999 (2%) but about the same as in 998, 2, and 2. The proportion of visitors who reported walking around Las Vegas (9%) increased significantly over each of the past four years (26% in 998, 2% in 999, % in 2, and 22% in 2). One in six (7%) visitors used a rental car, a significant decrease from last year (2%) and from 999 (2%). Use of the Monorail continued to increase significantly to 8% from 5% in 998, 6% in 999, 7% in 2, and % last year. Bus use (2%) did not decline much from the past two years but remains at levels significantly lower than in 998 (2%) and 999 (5%) (Figure ). Multiple responses were permitted.

Page 28 GLS Research Las Vegas Visitor Profile Fiscal Year 22 FIGUR Taxi Usage And Satisfaction Fiscal Year 998 (Base = 795) 9 9 92 96 9 P R C N T 75 5 25 Fiscal Year 999 (Base = 676) Fiscal Year 2 (Base = 766) Fiscal Year 2 (Base = 86) Fiscal Year 22 (Base = 79) 2 2 2 2 2 Used a taxi Satisfied with service Respondents who said they had used a taxi to travel in the Las Vegas area (2% of all visitors) were asked whether they were satisfied with the service they received. As in the past four years, the vast majority (9%) said they were satisfied (Figure ).

GLS Research Page 29 Fiscal Year 22 Las Vegas Visitor Profile FIGUR 5 When Decided Where To Stay (Among Those Who Stayed Overnight) 92 92 9 9 92 P R C N T 8 6 Fiscal Year 998 (Base Size = 268) Fiscal Year 999 (Base Size = 285) Fiscal Year 2 (Base Size = 288) Fiscal Year 2 (Base Size = 29) Fiscal Year 22 (Base Size = 282) 2 7 7 9 5 Before leaving n route After arrival 7 The proportion of visitors in the 22 study who decided where to stay before leaving home (92%) was down significantly from the high of 9% in 2 but in line with previous years. The proportion of visitors who decided where to stay after their arrival (7%) was down slightly from last year (9%) and up from 5% in 2, but equal to 998 and 999 levels (Figure 5).

Page GLS Research Las Vegas Visitor Profile Fiscal Year 22 FIGUR 6 When Decided Where To Gamble (Among Those Who Gambled) Fiscal Year 998 (Base Size = 2868) P R C N T 8 6 Fiscal Year 999 (Base Size = 2868) Fiscal Year 2 (Base Size = 2787) Fiscal Year 2 (Base Size = 287) Fiscal Year 22 (Base Size = 295) 28 2 7 66 66 7 75 2 Before leaving n route After arrival Three-quarters (75%) of visitors decided where to gamble after arriving in Las Vegas, a significant increase over the past four years (7% in 998, 66% in 999 and 2, and 7% in 2). The proportion of visitors saying they decided where to gamble before leaving home declined to just under one-quarter (2%), down from % in 998, % in 999 and 2, and 28% last year. One percent (%) said they made their decision about where to gamble en route to Las Vegas (Figure 6).

GLS Research Page Fiscal Year 22 Las Vegas Visitor Profile FIGUR 7 When Decided Which Shows To See (Among Those Who Saw Shows) 88 89 9 8 Fiscal Year 998 (Base Size = 5) 8 8 P R C N T 6 Fiscal Year 999 (Base Size = 62) Fiscal Year 2 (Base Size = 579) Fiscal Year 2 (Base Size = 95) Fiscal Year 22 (Base Size = 25) 2 8 2 6 Before leaving n route After arrival Don't know/not sure ight in ten (8%) visitors said they decided which shows to see after arriving in Las Vegas, the same as last year, but a significant decline from about nine in ten in 998 (88%), 999 (89%), and 2 (9%). Conversely, the proportion of visitors who decided what shows to see before leaving for Las Vegas (8%) was up significantly from the past four years (2% in 998, % in 999, % in 2, and % in 2) (Figure 7).

Page 2 GLS Research Las Vegas Visitor Profile Fiscal Year 22 FIGUR 8 Travel Agent Assistance P R C N T 2 7 29 22 998 999 2 2 22 Only yes responses FISCAL are YAR reported in this chart The proportion of visitors who reported using a travel agent in planning their trip to Las Vegas continued to decline. Just over two in ten (22%) visitors in the current year used a travel agent, down significantly from 7% in 998, % in 999, % in 2, and 29% last year (Figure 8).

GLS Research Page Fiscal Year 22 Las Vegas Visitor Profile FIGUR 9 Travel Agent Influence And Use (Among Those Who Used A Travel Agent) 8 8 8 8 92 95 88 9 87 88 8 P R C N T 6 Fiscal Year 998 (Base = 22) Fiscal Year 999 (Base = 7) Fiscal Year 2 (Base = 29) Fiscal Year 2 (Base = 966) Fiscal Year 22 (Base = 72) 2 6 2 Influenced destination 8 8 Influenced accommodations Booked accommodations Booked transportation Only yes responses are reported in this chart As in the past, visitors in the 22 study reported using travel agents primarily to book transportation (88%) and accommodations (87%) (Figure 9). The proportion of visitors in 22 who used a travel agent to book transportation is down from the high of 95% in 999 and also down from 92% in 998. The proportion of visitors who booked accommodations through a travel agent was up from 8% in both 999 and 2. There was a small (although not statistically significant) increase in the number of visitors who said a travel agent influenced their choice of accommodations, to % from 8% in each of the past two years. However, these figures were still far lower than the highs of % in 998 and % in 999. It appears likely that the decline in the influence of travel agents over the past three years reflects the growing use of the Internet among travelers to look for, compare, and select suitable accommodations. These figures now appear to have stabilized. For the third consecutive year, Internet usage was tracked and the findings lend support to the apparent shift among some Las Vegas visitors towards travel planning on the Internet.

Page GLS Research Las Vegas Visitor Profile Fiscal Year 22 FIGUR 2 Whether Used The Internet To Plan Trip 25 2 2 P R C N T 2 2 2 22 FISCAL YAR Only yes responses are reported in this chart For the third consecutive year, visitors were asked if they used the Internet to plan their trip. The number of visitors said they had done so was 2%, about the same as last year (25%), but slightly higher than in 2 (2%). Three-quarters (76%) said they did not use the Internet to plan their trip (Figure 2).

GLS Research Page 5 Fiscal Year 22 Las Vegas Visitor Profile 75 FIGUR 2 Internet Influence And Use (Among Those Who Used The Internet To Plan Trip) Fiscal Year 2 (Base = 72) Fiscal Year 2 (Base = 82) Fiscal Year 22 (Base = 778) 6 P R C N T 5 25 9 5 27 6 5 52 8 8 Influenced destination Influenced accommodations Booked transportation Booked accommodations Only yes responses are reported in this chart Among the 2% of visitors who used the Internet to plan their trip, it appears that the impact of the Internet continues to increase (Figure 2). Sixty-four percent (6%) said they booked their accommodations on the Internet, up significantly from % in 2 and 52% in 2. One-half (5%) said they booked transportation on-line, also up significantly from 27% in 2 and 6% last year. More than one-half (5%) said the Internet influenced their choice of accommodations, up from 9% in 2 and one-third (%) in 2. The proportion who said the Internet influenced their decision to visit Las Vegas (8%) was the same as last year, but is double what it was in 2 (%).

Page 6 GLS Research Las Vegas Visitor Profile Fiscal Year 22 8 FIGUR 22 Whether Visited Downtown Las Vegas P R C N T 6 55 6 58 52 2 998 999 2 2 22 FISCAL YAR Only yes responses are reported in this chart The proportion of visitors who said they had visited Downtown Las Vegas is significantly lower than in any of the previous four years (Figure 22). It has declined substantially from 55% in 998, 6% in 999, 58% in 2 and 52% in 2 to % in the current year.

GLS Research Page 7 Fiscal Year 22 Las Vegas Visitor Profile FIGUR 2 Main Reason For Visiting Downtown Las Vegas (Among Those Visiting Downtown) Too see Fremont Street xperience Sightsee/see casinos Lodging Downtown To Gamble Dining Shopping Other 5 5 5 6 2 5 9 2 2 9 9 Fiscal Year 998 (Base=86) Fiscal Year 999 (Base=988) Fiscal Year 2 (Base=92) Fiscal Year 2 (Base=76) Fiscal Year 22 (Base=8) 2 5 6 5 7 58 55 2 6 PRCNT Respondents who had visited Downtown Las Vegas were asked for the primary reason why they had done so (Figure 2). Fifty-five percent (55%) said that they had gone to the Downtown area mainly to see the Fremont Street xperience, not significantly changed from last year (58%) but up slightly from 5% in 998 through 2. Twenty-three percent (2%) said they were lodging Downtown, higher than in 998 (9%), and continuing an upward trend from % in 999 and 2 and 2% last year. One in ten percent (%) went Downtown primarily to gamble, lower than the peak of % in 2 but comparable to 998, 999, and 2 figures. The number who said they came to Downtown primarily to sightsee declined to less than %, lower than at any time in the past four years.

Page 8 GLS Research Las Vegas Visitor Profile Fiscal Year 22 FIGUR 2 Why Did Not Visit Downtown Las Vegas (Among Those Who Did Not Visit Downtown) Not enough time No interest Unfamiliar with Downtown Prefer Strip Inconvenient Don't like Downtown/bad area Other 8 7 5 8 9 8 8 7 2 5 6 5 2 2 2 8 8 6 7 2 2 2 2 9 6 6 Fiscal Year 998 (Base=8) Fiscal Year 999 (Base=) Fiscal Year 2 (Base=75) Fiscal Year 2 (Base=592) Fiscal Year 22 (Base=852) 5 2 5 PRCNT As shown in Figure 2, a lack of sufficient time (6%) continues to be the main reason cited by a plurality of visitors for why they did not visit the Downtown area. The proportion giving this response has remained consistent over the past two years although it is down from 5% in 998 and up from % in 999. About one in five (2%) said they were generally not interested in visiting the Downtown area again, consistent with the past two years but higher than the 7% giving this reason in 998. Sixteen percent (6%) did not visit Downtown because they were unfamiliar with the area, up from 2% in 2 and % in 998 but down slightly from 9% in 999. The number of visitors who said that they did not visit the Downtown area because they did not like it, or thought it was a bad area, increased significantly to 2% after slowly inching upwards from 2% in 998 to 5% in 2.

GLS Research Page 9 Fiscal Year 22 Las Vegas Visitor Profile 5 FIGUR 25 Visits To Nearby Places P R C N T 28 2 25 25 22 2 7 7 998 999 2 2 22 FISCAL YAR Only yes responses are reported in this chart We asked visitors if they had visited, or planned to visit, other nearby areas during their current trip to Las Vegas (Figure 25). One in six (7%) said yes, down significantly from the past four years (25% each in 998 and 999, 22% in 2, and 2% in 2).

Page GLS Research Las Vegas Visitor Profile Fiscal Year 22 FIGUR 26 Other Nearby Places Visited * (Among Those Who Planned to Visit Other Places) Hoover Dam Lake Mead Grand Canyon Laughlin Bryce Canyon Zion National Park Death Valley Valley of Fire Mt. Charleston Other 8 9 8 6 9 6 7 8 5 2 5 7 2 2 5 6 59 67 5 57 5 29 25 27 8 2 9 25 2 28 Fiscal Year 998 (Base=8) Fiscal Year 999 (Base=8) Fiscal Year 2 (Base=722) Fiscal Year 2 (Base=752) Fiscal Year 22 (Base=59) 9 6 9 2 6 8 PRCNT Among the 7% of visitors who indicated they had visited or planned to visit nearby areas, most were likely to report visits to Hoover Dam (5%), the Grand Canyon (%), Laughlin, Nevada (28%), and Lake Mead (25%) (Figure 26). The proportion visiting Hoover Dam was about the same as in the past two years but far lower than the peak of 67% in 999. The number visiting Laughlin was also about the same as in the past two years but significantly higher than the 2% in 998 and 9% in 999. The number of visitors to Lake Mead was down significantly from % in 998, % in 999, and % in 2. Multiple responses were permitted.