How have other towns redirected shoppers after local Christmas market cancellations — evidence on visitor diversion to nearby cities or national chains?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
When towns cancel local Christmas markets the available evidence shows no single, uniform pattern of where shoppers go next; scholarly and industry work points to a mix of outcomes including diverted trips to nearby urban markets or retail centres, increased spending at convenience or well-positioned local outlets, and a substantial shift into national chains and online platforms driven by price and convenience pressures [1] [2] [3] [4]. Existing studies document the economic value of markets and the ability of other retail formats to capture displaced demand, but they do not provide a comprehensive, cross-jurisdictional tally proving that shoppers reliably migrate to either neighbouring cities or national chains after cancellations [1] [2] [5].
1. What the literature confirms about market cancellations and lost footfall
Research into Christmas markets emphasizes that they generate distinctive tourism, social and spending patterns that boost local footfall and ancillary spending in hotels, restaurants and shops — meaning cancellation creates a measurable hole in local demand—but those studies focus on the markets’ value rather than tracing exactly where each cancelled visitor spends instead [1] [6] [5]. Academic travel‑cost and expenditure studies of markets show visitors’ spending is concentrated around the event and host city, underscoring that cancellations remove a concentrated source of seasonal foot traffic [1].
2. Evidence that nearby towns sometimes capture redirected shoppers
Case studies and municipal reporting suggest larger or better‑known neighbouring markets can absorb displaced visitors when travel remains feasible, because Christmas markets function as regional attractions and visitors are willing to travel for atmosphere and variety; Local Government case studies document markets’ role as tourist magnets for places like Bath and imply spatial substitution is plausible where nearby alternatives exist, though those documents stop short of quantifying diversion rates [5] [6]. The academic literature recommends comparing markets across countries to understand visitor substitution, which signals a gap: while plausible that visitors re‑route to nearby cities, rigorous cross‑town evidence on consistent diversion is limited [1].
3. Evidence that national chains and online retailers win share instead
Retail and consumer surveys from Deloitte, Adobe and market trackers show shoppers in 2025 are highly deal‑driven, digitally fluent and ready to substitute in‑person browsing with national chains or e‑commerce when convenience or price matters; Deloitte finds shoppers lean on promotions and digital channels, which creates a clear pathway for national chains and online marketplaces to capture spending displaced by cancelled local events [3] [4]. Broader holiday trend reports also show shoppers start earlier, chase Black Friday deals, and use multiple channels — behaviours that favour national players and platforms over one‑time local events [7] [8].
4. Store‑type winners in practice: convenience stores and digitally‑enabled retailers
A study of mandatory retail closures offers direct transactional evidence that the pattern of winners varies by city size and format: when large stores closed, convenience stores sometimes experienced increased transactions while smaller non‑chain grocers lost volume, suggesting that proximity, hours and digital fulfilment matter in capturing redirected demand [2]. That research indicates redirected spending does not automatically flow to large national chains; instead, retailers that match consumer needs for convenience, extended hours, or seamless digital options can exploit the gap.
5. Competing narratives, data gaps and incentives in reporting
Municipal promotional materials and tourism sites naturally frame markets as irreplaceable drivers of visitor spend — an implicit agenda to restore cancelled events or secure funding — while retail industry reports highlight growth opportunities for national chains and e‑commerce, an incentive to emphasize substitution to their channels [5] [3]. Crucially, published research and industry analytics document the economic significance of markets and point to plausible substitution channels, but there is a lack of standardized transactional follow‑the‑customer studies across multiple cancellations that would definitively map proportions diverted to nearby cities versus national chains [1] [2].
Conclusion: a conditional answer
The balance of evidence says redirected shoppers go to a mix of places: some travel to nearby cities or alternative markets where those options exist, others gravitate to national chains or online platforms driven by price and convenience, and in certain contexts small convenience retailers can pick up short‑term volume [5] [3] [2]. Which outcome predominates depends on travel feasibility, the presence of nearby attractions, local retail mix and shoppers’ deal‑seeking behaviours — and the scholarly record to date documents these mechanisms without producing a universal diversion rate [1] [4].