Editor’s Note: Part 2 of the analysis of the first round of liquor law reform hearings will focus exclusively on a report brought to the fore by Bill Martin, Jr., principal with Commerce CRG, and John Gurr of InterNet Properties. The 2005 and 2006 reports — Choosing Utah — are a qualitative examination of Utah’s business environments.

The report was conducted by Real Estate Professionals for Economic Growth (RE-PEG) and Summit Group Communications. It was sponsored by groups that represent a wide spectrum: Commerce CRG, The Ninigret Group, Coldwell Banker Commercial, InterNet Properties, CBRE, The Boyer Company, NAI Utah, The State of Utah’s Governor’s Office of Economic Development (GOED), Salt Lake County’s Division of Economic Development, and the Economic Development Corporation of Utah (EDCU), Salt Lake City, and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

DEVELOPING A BROADER, DEEPER PERSPECTIVE

Perhaps the biggest danger to emerge at the June 11 hearing on liquor law reform was the lack of a broad, deep perspective. Quick to dismiss the value of a systematic and comprehensive qualitative study, Kathryn Balmforth, one of the state’s five liquor control commissioners, asked where are the data as she perused a 175-page report in the matter of just seconds. Incorrectly and despairing short-sightedly, she discounted the work as a mere collection of anecdotes selected to articulate a particular agenda. Actually, the brief exchange emphasizes the need for a publicly appointed delegate to view her responsibilities with a dispassionate, informed perspective.

Before I discuss the salient findings of the report, based on my experience in academia as a public relations teacher and researcher well versed in qualitative and quantitative research methodologies, let’s position this report for its value and for its instructive insights into where we go from here.

All research is incremental. It is meant to shed light on the problem questions, most specifically to fine tune them for continuing investigation. The most effective research process always starts with a qualitative study which helps to shape the benchmarked goals of a forthcoming quantitative study. There are limitations to how findings from a qualitative study should be extrapolated. These are clearly mentioned in this report.

However, the report (which covers two years of qualitative in-depth intensive interviews from a representative sample of the wide-ranging spectrum of industries present in Utah or those who considered having a Utah business presence) becomes an important piece in moving to the next stage of planning and developing strategies for moving toward substantive liquor law reform. At the end of this post, I will have some specific suggestions.

WHAT ARE PERCEPTIONS?

We heard a lot about the word “perceptions” at the hearing and we heard a few try clumsily to show how those perceptions are empirical realities. However, one must understand how perceptions should be positioned within a complex matrix of factors that spring from many contexts — economic, cultural, educational, political, and social. Perhaps the most significant value of the RE-PEG report is that we should exercise a breadth and depth of perspective in discussing those issues and the perceptions surrounding those issues in making wise public policy decisions.

The report doesn’t focus exclusively nor predominantly on the perceptions of liquor laws in Utah but what it accomplishes is to situate those perceptions within the larger perspective. Among many recommendations dealing with a broad range of business and economic issues at the end of the report is this: “Exploring opportunities to further simplify Utah’s liquor laws so that they are easier to understand and less perceptively restrictive to outsiders.”

The authors do a good job early on in providing a balanced perspective on this often vexing issue of how perceptions should be operationalized:

“However, Utah’s perceptions do seem to be more ‘distinguishable’ or more known than do other states, i.e., people may have a perception about Kansas or Ohio, but such perceptions are not as emotionally driving as Utah’s with the LDS church, liquor laws and conservative lifestyle. …

“However, it is believed that such ‘strong’ perceptions do not always hurt the State. Perception is likely to have the most influence on those who have had limited personal trial to Utah. Short trial periods have disproportional weight or influence on the ultimate relocation or expansion, where potent perceptions are most likely to be linked to reality. It appears that one’s perception can be updated or changed through a short trial of Utah [and] often times did not directly impact a company’s buying decision.

“Moreover, there is strong indication that the general perceptions of Utah are ‘melting’ or becoming more diluted, albeit more slowly than some would care to see happen.”

This is hardly agenda setting as much as it is edifying. With these comments in mind, the authors — writing on behalf of a large, diversified group of sponsors — make it clear that outsider perceptions should not be ignored and ultimately some of those perceptions can have an impact upon business relationships with the state. They add:

“This is particularly true if the perceptions prevent business decision makers from ever directly experiencing Utah. It is vital that Utah pay attention to various perceptions, often created by existing or past events, which can impact how outsiders view the state.”

UTAH’S ‘LOADED’ PERCEPTIONS

The authors also identified four “loaded” perceptions that work both positively for and negatively against the state’s interests. They are: the relative significant influence of the LDS Church on the state’s culture, government and business; complicated, strict liquor laws making it difficult to buy and consume alcohol; a conservative, Norman Rockwell-like monoculture, and the challenges of being a non-LDS single person. Of these loaded perceptions, the authors noted that the last one was the most change-limited perception.

On the question of sharing perceptions of Utah, the one most frequently cited as the first perception concerned the state’s liquor laws. Again, the authors assessed this within a balanced context:

“And though virtually everyone we interviewed had a distinct perception about Utah’s liquor laws, most believed they had improved over time and were becoming more simplistic and easier for outsiders to understand and work around. Some expressed a need for the State to further simplify and bring up-to-date some of these laws for greater effect.”

Certainly, this sentiment has been echoed by recent events: the announcement by the Utah Hospitality Association to start a petition drive for a statewide referendum on private club memberships, the subsequent statement by Governor Jon Huntsman, Jr., to move forward on a draft proposal for substantive liquor law reform, and the decision by the state’s liquor commission to initiate this process, starting with these public hearings.

Again, it’s worth quoting one of the respondents interviewed for the study:

“I think as someone who lives here you kind of understand, I understand them and I think they are silly but I don’t think that they are tremendously difficult. I think that they give the State a weird reputation as a place that is impossible; it just plays to the whole uptight image of the State.”

NORMALIZING UTAH’S LIQUOR LAWS

Perhaps the best way to view this process is “normalizing” the laws, which certainly does not affect nor dilute the state’s enforcement efforts. In fact, as several speakers alluded to during Wednesday’s hearings, the state would even become more effective and efficient in ensuring that the public’s welfare and safety are protected.

The report suggests:

“By bringing these laws more in-line with other cities in the United States, it would make Utah easier to understand from an outsider’s point of view and may diminish some of the ‘myths of wackiness’ about Utah. But most interviewees felt that although it would impact the visits of people ‘trialing’ Utah, its impact on residents once here would be less dramatic (in very short time frames, people appear to adapt to the local environment to accommodate their chosen lifestyle).

“Given the expected cultural resistance to broad changes in these laws, one is left to wonder if the expected results would match the almost certain conflict and resistance to the changes.”

Again, there is the challenge for liquor law reform proponents to be sensitive to those elements of resistance. The issue then is to frame the matter of liquor law reform in terms that balance substantively the mutual interests of those involved in the hospitality and tourism industries with those concerned about their own cultural sensitivities being usurped for purely singular interests.

WHAT NEW RESEARCH CAN ACCOMPLISH

The report is thoughtful and balanced but it does suggest direction for some additional research that would fill in a fairly substantial information vacuum surrounding this issue. One persisting sense from this week’s hearing was confusion.

There were no clear answers about the distribution and use of the revenues collected from private club memberships. Also, several business owners challenged commissioners to join them at their business doors to observe directly the reactions of patrons who react to the need for private club memberships.

Also, it would be worthwhile to consider data about our head-to-head competition with neighboring states such as Colorado which vie aggressively for their respective shares of the skiing, outdoor recreation, and convention industries.

Also, I think the public needs some data about cohort states that have enacted or are contemplating their own liquor law reforms. As noted previously in this blog, Colorado recently became the 35th state to permit Sunday liquor sales options.

The report discussed here is a solid starting ground for conducting a new round of focus groups and surveys, involving dual tracks of residents and visitors as well as drinkers and nondrinkers. The focus groups would help fine tune questions for a survey instrument that would provide empirical evidence with regard to the relative strengths and weaknesses of these perceptions. Furthermore, they would add weight to establishing priorities for meaningful liquor law reform that correct and eliminate these perceptions.

No one can ignore what already promises to be an intense, agitated public conflict about this issue. However, I think that – as in the case of this report – some constructive engagement in the research process can begin to help all parties concerned reach a pragmatic, actionable approach to the matter of reform.