The use of security countermeasures at public venues has escalated dramatically over the past 20 years. We present a study of public venue patrons (N = 1276) examining how public perceptions of efficacy and intrusiveness of four security measures deployed at three different public assembly venues in the U.S. impact planned attendance. Enhanced use of these countermeasures,—Closed-Circuit Televisions (CCTVs), security guards, metal detectors, and bag checks—was evaluated by customers for their effectiveness in ensuring safety against crime and terrorism. We found that the perceived efficacy of the countermeasure in reducing these risks was positively associated with an increased likelihood of customer attendance at the venue. Moreover, customer beliefs about the overall enhancement of venue security and the sense of personal safety offered by these countermeasures also predicted their likelihood of attending. Unexpectedly, the study found that attitudes towards the privacy and convenience aspects of the countermeasures were not significant predictors of venue attendance. Results indicated that both cost and the extent of risk reduction predicted willingness to pay for enhanced security countermeasures. As the cost associated with a security measure increased, customers’ willingness to pay decreased. Conversely, as the perceived risk reduction offered by the security measures increased, customers indicated an increased willingness to pay. We found customers’ beliefs, attitudes, and intentions towards security measures were generally consistent across all three venues, indicating generalizability of findings across a range of public assembly venues in the U.S. Overall, the study provides evidence that customers support security countermeasures and endorse their implementation, which offers valuable insights for venue managers and policymakers aiming to enhance security measures at public assembly venues.