Michigan State University Extension
Tourism Educational Materials - 33840030
06/06/02
New York's Great Lakes Angler Markets
List of files and visuals associated with this text.
Coastal Recreation Fact Sheet
Source: New York Sea Grant
Year: April 1999
Authors:
Nancy A. Connelly, Research Specialist, Cornell University
Diane Kuehn, Coastal Tourism Specialist, New York Sea Grant
Tommy L. Brown, Senior Research Associate, Cornell
University
Barbara A. Knuth, Associate Professor, Cornell University
INTRODUCTION
Two recent studies of anglers in New York indicate the
number of anglers fishing New York's Great Lakes has
declined in the past 10 years (Connelly et al. 1990, 1997).
Speculation exists that those fishing the Great Lakes now
may be different from those fishing in the past, especially
in areas where management changes to fishing regulations
have occurred (Connelly et al. 1999). To resolve this
speculation, New York Sea Grant sponsored a study to
examine the characteristics and preferences of current and
potential anglers to New York's Great Lakes. For this
study, New York's Great Lakes waters were defined as Lake
Erie, the Niagara and St. Lawrence Rivers, Lake Ontario and
its embayments, and tributaries up to the first barrier
impassable to fish.
Four types of market segmentation were used in this study
to divide anglers into groups. Segmentation was based on:
1) anglers' past experience with and future intentions for
Great Lakes fishing (experience segment); 2) where anglers
live (geographic segment); 3) angler preferences for
different types of fishing opportunities (preference
segment); and 4) angler preferences for specific products
such as charter boat and guide services or fishing
tournaments and derbies (products and services segment).
Within each of these four segments, anglers were broken
down into groups according to their interests and where
they live. By grouping anglers this way, educational and
promotional materials can be effectively targeted to the
anglers most likely to need and use them.
METHODS
Data from a mail survey of New York fishing license holders
were used to segment anglers. A sample of 5,000 license
holders was drawn systematically from all fishing licenses
both resident and nonresident, for the license year
beginning October 1, 1995, and ending September 30, 1996.
The mail questionnaire was designed to gather data on Great
Lakes fishing participation, reasons for lack of angler
participation, future interests of anglers, and anglers'
preferences for different types of fishing opportunities.
The questionnaires were mailed in January 1997 and referred
to fishing experiences in calendar year 1996.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Survey Response
Of the 5,000 questionnaires mailed, 222 were undeliverable
and 2,780 completed questionnaires were returned. This
resulted in an adjusted response rate of 58%.
Experience Segmentation
Anglers were divided into five groups based on their past
experiences fishing the Great Lakes and their future
intentions to do so: 1) anglers with no experience
past/future; 2) anglers who have fished New York's Great
Lakes in the past only; 3) potential Great Lakes anglers;
4) sporadic Great Lakes anglers; and 5) consistent Great
Lakes anglers, Table 1(Vis. 1). The no experience
past/future group, Table 1(Vis. 1), comparison 22% of
anglers, had not fished the Great Lakes in the past and did
not intend to do so in the future. Therefore, this group
will not be discussed further.
Current and potential anglers were divided into three
groups: potential, sporadic, and consistent, Table 1
(Vis. 1). The majority of anglers fit into one of these
three groups. Twenty-five percent, over one-quarter of a
million anglers, Table 1(Vis. 1), were consistent users,
having fished in New York's Great Lakes waters in each of
the past six years.
Almost one-third of a million anglers were considered
sporadic, having fished at least once in the past six years
in New York's Great Lakes waters. Potential Great Lakes
anglers, those interested in Great Lakes fishing but who
have not yet fished there, total almost 200,000.
Approximately 30% of current and potential anglers belong
to sportsman's organizations. However, membership is split
among many local, state, and national groups, making direct
communication with large numbers of anglers via sportsman's
organizations difficult. More than 40% of current and
potential Great Lakes anglers have access to the Internet.
This form of communication will likely continue to grow and
thus may be a good way of reaching these anglers.
Over half of the potential group (56%) indicated that they
did not fish the Great Lakes because they did not have the
necessary boat or equipment; 29% indicated they did not
have the knowledge or skills. More than half (56%) also
indicated that they preferred to fish locations other than
New York's Great Lakes waters.
Anglers in the small past only group, Table 1(Vis. 1),
those who had fished New York's Great Lakes in the past but
did not intent to do so in the future gave several reasons
for no longer fishing New York's Great Lakes. Preference
for fishing in other locations (75%) and lacking the
necessary boat or equipment (54%) were most frequently
mentioned. About 43% of anglers indicated that due to
contaminants, I wouldn't want to eat the fish.
Geographic Segmentation
New York state was divided into 10 media market areas for
this analysis, Figure 1; Brown 1981(Fig.1). Anglers in the
various experience groups tend to live in different
locations. Consistent anglers live closer to the Great
Lakes with almost 30% in the Buffalo region, 16% in
Rochester, 14% in Syracuse, and 10% in Watertown. Sporadic
anglers were quite dispersed, with 22% from out of state,
15% from Buffalo, 14% from Syracuse, and 12% from New York
City. Many potential anglers live in the eastern portion of
New York state, with 31% from New York City and 16% from
Albany.
FIGURE 1. New York state market regions (SRDS 1993)
(Fig. 1)
TABLE 1. Estimated number of fishing license holders in
each experience-based market group. (Vis. 1)
Preference Segmentation
Anglers were divided into six groups based on their
preferences for different types of fishing, Table 2
(Vis. 2). The two largest groups, Table 2, #1 and #2
(Vis. 2) preferred a mix of fishing opportunities. For
example, they preferred equal amounts of open lake versus
tributary fishing. Group #1 (mix of noncompetitive
opportunities) showed little interest in competitive
fishing opportunities such as derbies, whereas 61% of group
#2 (mix of opportunities with a preference for motor
boating) had either participated in a derby on New York's
Great Lakes or were interested in participating in one in
the future. Almost 80% of the second group had used charter
boat or guide services in the past or were interested in
using them in the future.
Three groups, Table 2, #3, #5, and #6(Vis. 2) had varying
levels of interest in boating. The largest group (#3, catch
and release, warm water boat anglers) preferred catch and
release fishing from a boat and had a slight preference for
warm water species. Of the anglers in this group who fished
in 1996, 71% fished from a boat they or their family or
friends owned, and 46% fished from a boat for bass or
walleye.
The next largest boating group, Table 2, #5(Vis. 2), warm
water, lake, motorboat anglers who keep fish) preferred to
fish almost exclusively from motorboats and keep the fish
they caught. They preferred mostly the open lake rather
than tributaries and indicated a slight preference for warm
water species. Three-quarters (76%) of these anglers who
fished the Great Lakes in 1996 fished from a boat and
almost half (47%) fished from a boat for bass or walleye.
The smallest boating group, Table 2, #6(Vis. 2), cold
water, lake, motorboat anglers), the smallest group
overall, consisted of anglers who preferred motor boating
in the open lake almost exclusively and preferred to fish
mostly for cold water species. However, just over half
(57%) of this group had actually fished from a boat in 1996
and 39% fished from a boat for trout or salmon. A small
number of these anglers (13%) used charter boat services in
1996. Almost 40% had used charter boat or guide services in
the past; few who had not used services in the past were
interested in using them in the future. Over half (54%) of
the group had participated in derbies in the past and an
additional 26% were interested in participating in the
future.
TABLE 2. Angler market groups based on angler preferences
for different fishing opportunities. Equal indicates that
anglers prefer that equal amounts of each opportunity be
available.(Vis. 2)
The remaining group of anglers preferred mostly fishing
tributaries for cold water species, Table 2, #4(Vis. 2),
cold water tributary anglers. Almost 80% of anglers in this
group who fished in New York's Great Lakes region in 1996
fished tributaries for cold water species. This group
preferred to fish noncompetitively most of the time and
practice catch and release fishing.
By comparing the preference groups identified in Table 2
(Vis. 2) with the consistent sporadic, and potential Great
Lakes angler groups identified in Table 1(Vis. 1), the
estimated number of anglers in each preference and
experience group is identified, Table 3(Vis. 3). Preference
groups #1 and #2, preferring a mix of fishing
opportunities, contain most of the potential Great Lakes
anglers (nearly 136,000). In order to attract these
anglers, the diverse fishing opportunities of New York's
Great Lakes need to be marketed. A large portion of these
potential anglers live in the New York City and Albany
market regions.
Segmentation by Products and Services
Anglers in New York's Great Lakes region can also be
segmented according to the services they use (that is,
charger boat or guide services and fishing tournaments and
derbies). Almost one-third (32%) of the anglers who had
fished New York's Great Lakes in the past used charter boat
or guide services. Approximately half of the anglers used
these services with friends (not from work), about one-
quarter went primarily with family members, about one-
quarter went with friends from work, and very few (<5%)
went alone or with strangers. We assume satisfaction with
those services was high because 83% of those who had used
the services in the past said they would like to use them
again.
When broken down by experience groups, more than half (57%)
of the consistent anglers were interested in charter boat
or guide services in the future; 75% of the potential
anglers were interested. Anglers who used these services in
the past tended to be older, with half (49%) over age 45.
Anglers who had not used these services in the past but are
interested were younger, with 32% under age 35. Almost one-
third of past users came from out of state. The largest
proportions of potential anglers live in Buffalo (19%), New
York City (16%), and Syracuse (13%). One-quarter of
potential anglers indicated they didn't fish the Great
Lakes because of limited access to the water. Charter boat
operators and guides might want to emphasize their ability
to provide access to the water as a way of reaching these
potential anglers. Over two-fifths (44%) of those with past
or potential interest in charter boat or guide services
have access to the Internet.
One-quarter (26%) of those who had fished the Great Lakes
in the past had participated in a fishing tournament or
derby. One-third (34%) of those who participated in 1996
were new to Great Lakes derbies. Only 23% of those who had
participated in tournaments and derbies prior to 1996 also
participated in 1996. It appears that many anglers do not
participate in derbies year after year. However, virtually
all (97%) of those who participated in 1996 said they would
like to participate again.
When broken down into experience groups, over half (53%) of
the consistent users were interested in future derby
participation, whereas 38% of sporadic and potential Great
Lakes anglers were interested. One-quarter of past derby
participants live in the Buffalo area; 19% of potential
participants live there. The greatest proportion of past
derby participants live in areas along the Great Lakes,
whereas larger proportions of potential participants are
found in New York City (16%) and out of state (17%).
Anglers who indicated an interest in derbies but had not
participated in the past indicated that they do not fish
New York's Great Lakes because they lacked the necessary
boat or equipment (45%), didn't have the knowledge or
skills for Great Lakes fishing (19%), or preferred to fish
other locations (32%).
TABLE 3. Estimated number of anglers in preference groups
and by experience-based market groups.(Vis. 3)
CONCLUSION
Market segmentation allows businesses and communities to
target their advertising geographically. Anglers residing
in different locations exhibit different levels of
involvement in Great Lakes fishing. Businesses can further
refine their advertising, reaching consistent anglers who
live nearby with one message and targeting potential
anglers, many of whom live in the New York City area, with
a different message.
Specific information about the use of Great Lakes services
and products by anglers can benefit service-related
businesses such as charter boat and guide services.
Potential Great Lakes anglers were the largest potential
market for charger boat or guide services, whereas
consistent anglers comprised most of the potential market
for derbies and tournaments.
The size and composition of the potential Great Lakes
angler group provides important information to communities
and organizations interested in attracting new anglers. It
was determined that the majority of the potential market
identified prefer a mix of fishing opportunities and live
in the New York City and Albany areas.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank the following people for
their review comments on this fact sheet: Chad Dawson, SUNY
College of Environmental Science and Forestry; Douglas
Ververs, Cornell Cooperative Extension of Oswego County;
and David White, NY Sea Grant.
LITERATURE CITED
Brown, T.L. 1981. A market segmentation of New York's
Great Lakes anglers. Research Report. New York Sea Grant
Institute: Stony Brook, NY.
Connelly, N.A., T.L. Brown, and B. A. Knuth. 1990 New York
statewide angler survey 1988. New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation: Albany, NY.
Connelly, N.A., T. L. Brown, and B. A. Knuth. 1997. New
York statewide angler survey 1996, Report 1: angler effort
and expenditures. New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation: Albany, NY.
Connelly, N.A., T.L. Brown, B.A. Knuth, and L. Wedge. 1999.
Changes in the Utilization of New York's Great Lakes
Recreational Fisheries. Journal of Great Lakes Research (in
review).
SRDS. 1993 Spot TV and cable source. 75(10): PRA9-A15.
This paper is a result of research funded by the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Award #NA46RG0090 to
the Research Foundation of the State University of New York
of the New York Sea Grant Institute. The U.S. Government is
authorized to produce and distribute reprints for
governmental purposes notwithstanding any copyright
notation that may appear hereon. The views expressed herein
are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the
views of NOAAS or any of its sub-agencies.
| Visual title - Visual size |
Visual title - Visual size |
This information is for educational purposes only. References
to commercial products or trade names does not imply
endorsement by MSU Extension or bias against those not
mentioned. This information becomes public property upon
publication and may be printed verbatim with credit to MSU
Extension. Reprinting cannot be used to endorse or advertise
a commercial product or company.
This file was generated from data base TD on 09/30/03.
Data base TD was last revised on 06/06/02.
For more information about this data base or its contents please contact
alexande@msue.msu.edu . Please read our
disclaimer for important
information about using our site.