CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Last year's Republican National Convention brought in a little less money to Cleveland than what some expected, but the event's local organizers say they're OK with that.

That's because while the short-term economic effects may be fleeting, the community leaders that helped put on the event say they believe the lasting, long-term effects of the convention are what will make the event worth the effort. The event -- largely seen as safe and well executed in the face of low expectations -- brought positive media attention, helped accelerate long-planned civic projects and, convention planners believe, will lead to an increase in future conventions and other business opportunities.

"Cities have different reasons for hosting these," David Gilbert, the tourism official that led the RNC host committee, said in an interview with reporters and editors on Wednesday. "And I think for us, and this has been consistent all along, the [immediate] economic impact is the least of the reasons, because it's short-lived."

What do the RNC organizers say are the long-term benefits?

The success of the RNC -- in contrast with dire predictions of chaos and disorder -- helped shine a positive light on Cleveland on a prominent international stage. Organizers say the convention generated 3,000 stories in national media outlets, three-quarters of which were positive in tone. Many of the stories focused on Cleveland's downtown revitalization and the then-recent Cleveland Cavaliers championship.

Convention officials say they've doubled their average monthly convention leads since 2014, and say the pre-RNC infrastructure investment and RNC-related exposure has resulted in future events already on the books. They also alluded to possible development opportunities that could bear fruit in the coming years.

"We didn't see the RNC as the one singular thing that would help change the narrative, but we know that the narrative of Cleveland has been changing," Gilbert said.

Joe Roman, the leader of the Greater Cleveland Partnership, said the convention motivated city leaders to complete the renovation of Public Square, which had been discussed for decades. He said state leaders also fast-tracked the overhaul of the Innerbelt bridge (even though it wasn't completed in time for the RNC.)

The economic-impact study also didn't capture the August 2015 Republican debate, which brought crowds to Cleveland and primarily was held here because of Cleveland was the site of the convention.

Roman said Cleveland's success on an international stage will inject business leaders with a greater sense of confidence as it pursues future projects.

"Every day, I hear from business leaders who say, I don't think there's anything we can't do," he said.

How much money did the event bring in?

That depends on whom you ask.

One set of researchers hired by the RNC host committee found that 48,000 people visited, and $110 million was spent in Cleveland as a result of the GOP convention, held for four days in July 2016. Factoring in how that money was re-spent locally, the convention resulted in $188.4 million in total economic impact.

This number is close to the $200 million figure officials had discussed leading up to the event, and falls close to the average of political conventions held since 2008. Major economic winners included hotels, local government and the construction industry, according to Tourism Economics, the international firm that conducted the research.

However, another study done by Cleveland State University for the RNC host committee found more muted effects. That study found $67.8 million was spent here as a result of the convention, with $142.2 million in resulting total impact. They estimated just 44,000 people visited.

While Tourism Economics focused solely on the numbers, CSU researchers -- who interviewed media members, delegates, protesters and others -- also interviewed people on the ground. Visitors told them they arrived with negative impressions of the city ("rust belt," "dull," "boring" and "dangerous') they left with a more positive view ("friendly," "nice," "clean" and "safe.")

Why did the host committee commission two studies?

Host committee officials say they disagreed with aspects of the methodology used in the CSU study, which largely was completed in April. The number CSU came up with was dramatically lower than other similar studies done for recent political conventions, although organizers say that wasn't why they sought a second opinion.

The host committee hired Tourism Economics because it did similar research for the Democratic National Conventions in 2012 and 2016. Gilbert said using a firm with experience in the field allowed the host committee to make a more apples-to-apples comparison with other recent conventions.

"Tourism Economics could have given us the exact same number. We didn't go to them because they said we're going to give you a higher number, hire us. We said, does this look apples-to-apples based on other conventions you've done, and they said no," Gilbert said.



What are the major differences between how the two studies were done?

Of the roughly $64 million raised by the local host committee from corporations, local and state government and other groups, $25 million came from sources in Northeast Ohio. The CSU researchers didn't include this in their research at all, saying they believe that money would have been spent in Northeast Ohio anyway. Tourism Economics included this money in their calculations, but at a discounted rate.

Roman said that some local companies that donated, such as Eaton Corp. have operations in other states or countries where their money could have been spent instead.

"CSU felt that if a local company made a contribution to the RNC, that would have come to Cleveland somehow. We disagree," Roman said.

CSU got their 44,000 crowd-size number and resulting spending based on the roughly 300 people they questioned in Downtown Cleveland. Tourism Economics President Adam Sacks said his firm used the crowd number of 48,000 that was provided by the host committee, and calculated their resulting spending habits based on surveys of past convention visitors to Cleveland.

Sacks said the numbers his firm produced were "very much in line" with other conventions they've studied.

"They [CSU] chose to focus on certain elements of the convention, but because we do these a lot, we're aware of a lot of the different components, and I think we have a more well-rounded view of how they affect the local economy."

CSU spokesman Will Dube said the school developed its methodology through reviewing academic literature and reviewing other economic studies the school has performed.

"Tourism Economics obviously does a lot of these studies... they use a different model than we do, and that doesn't mean it's better or worse, but it's a different model they use to calculate that number," he said.

How much did the event cost?

The researchers hired by the host committee didn't take this into account. But the convention was funded by sources including $50 million from the federal government and $64 million raised by the host committee from a mix of corporate and government sources. The convention cost Cleveland an additional $11 million for things like trash pickup and lost revenue from parking meters.

Here are the studies from CSU and Tourism Economics: