$1 Million Gamble: A Survey Needed Before Investing in Large Screens

On April 21, the outgoing Orland Park mayor and Board of Trustees voted to invest an additional $1 million to install two large video screens at the Centennial Park West bandshell.

This decision appears to have been based largely on informal feedback from a handful of concert attendees after the first year's events. There was no evidence of a systematic survey—no clear indication of how many people were asked, how questions were phrased, or how representative those opinions were.

After the first year's concerts, the village is facing a $1 million net loss —with revenues of $317,000 against expenses of $1.2 million—every investment needs careful justification. The new $1 million screen project will need to generate at least $100,000 annually in additional revenue to pay off the $1 million investment over time, and ideally $300,000 or more annually,

In short: Hope is not a strategy. A formal, well-structured survey should have been conducted first.

Why a Survey Was Essential

🎯 1. Decision-Making Based on Data

Without evidence-based projections, it is impossible to determine whether the screens will significantly boost revenue or simply deepen the deficit. A survey would have provided reliable forecasts rather than leaving the decision to assumptions and anecdote.

👥 2. Customer-Centered Insight

A properly designed survey could answer key questions:

• Would large screens make potential attendees more likely to come?
• Would they be willing to pay higher ticket prices?
• Would the screens encourage longer stays, greater spending, or larger groups?

💰 3. Revenue Forecasting

Survey responses could inform important metrics:

• Price elasticity: How much more would attendees pay?
• Attendance changes: Would events attract larger crowds?
• Spending behavior: Would people spend more on food, drinks, or merchandise?

How the Survey Should Have Been Conducted

🧪 Key Survey Questions

Sample questions might include:

• How likely are you to attend events if large screens are added?
• Would better viewing experiences make you more willing to attend?
• Would you be willing to pay more—and if so, how much?
• Would you stay longer or bring more guests if screens were installed?
• Have you avoided past events due to poor visibility or crowd size?

📊 Survey Method: Stratified Random Sampling

A stratified random sample would ensure that key demographic groups were fairly represented, improving the reliability of projections. Here's how it would work:

📍 Step 1: Define the Target Population

• About 100,000 residents of Orland Park and surrounding areas, aged 18+.

📍 Step 2: Choose Stratification Variables

• Age Groups: (18–34, 35–54, 55+)
• Event Attendance History: (Never, Occasionally, Frequently)
• Household Type: (Families with kids, Singles/couples)

📍 Step 3: Determine Proportions

Use Census and local event data to reflect the real distribution across groups:

• 30% aged 18–34
• 40% aged 35–54
• 30% aged 55+

📍 Step 4: Set Sample Size

• Aim for 500 respondents for strong generalizability.
• Divide respondents proportionally among demographic groups.

Estimated Cost of a Proper Survey

Survey Design
$500–$1,000
Sampling/Recruitment
$1,000–$2,000
Incentives ($5–$10/response)
$2,500–$5,000
Survey Platform (e.g., Qualtrics)
$300–$1,000
Data Analysis & Reporting
$1,000–$2,000

• Total Estimated Cost:
  • Low-end (DIY): ~$4,500
  • Mid-range (partial outsourcing): ~$6,500
  • High-end (full professional management): ~$10,000–12,000

This cost is modest compared to the risk of misallocating $1 million.

🧾 Summary and Conclusion

Investing $1 million of public funds based only on anecdotal feedback was an avoidable mistake. A properly designed, statistically reliable survey would have cost less than 1% of the screen investment and could have provided critical insights about potential revenue gains.

Without such evidence, Orland Park’s residents face an all-too-common problem with the outgoing mayor and trustees: major spending decisions made on gut feelings rather than hard data.

Public officials owe taxpayers better. Especially when deficits already loom large, major investments must be based on facts, not vague hopes.