Survey on Meetings Data 2009

 

The majority of those who answered the questionnaire stated that they do collect data about meetings in their cities (78%). However, about a fifth of respondents claimed they don’t have any structured information on this issue.

Considering the information already available, association meetings are by far the most widely tracked type of event and are also the event about which the most comprehensive set of data is held.

 

More than 70% of the respondents who keep their own records, collect information at least on the name and duration of the events, the number of attendees and whether the event is national or international. At a secondary level, around half of those who collect data collect information on corporate meetings and keep information on their name, duration and number of attendees. The same proportion of respondents list by name the non-regular sporting events taking place in their destinations.

 

Regarding sources of information, most of the respondents who collect their own figures have more information than that which is provided by the convention bureau. More than 60% search the internet for more events and obtain information directly from meeting centres and other venues (such as universities and sports facilities), from PCO’s or from hotels.

With regard to the dissemination of the data, it’s interesting to note that, apart from ICCA or UIA rankings, a considerable proportion of respondents – slightly more than one third – keep the collected information inside the organisation. 

 

However, most of the organisations opt to spread it in various ways. Statistics on the number of meetings and participants are those communicated most often, not only within the industry but also to authorities and the public in general. Almost the same can be said about the ICCA and UIA rankings. Lists of confirmed events – be them past or future – are made known much less. They seem to be mostly used as “working tools” with business partners or organisations’ members. Also curious is that it’s relatively rare to communicate this kind information to other cities’ organisations.

Most of those who collect data about their destinations are willing to share this information, wholly or partially, within ECM. More than half believe that ECM should develop a way of measuring and comparing cities’ performances in the meetings industry. 25% do not believe this to be necessary, as there are other organisations already providing this service.

 

Despite the fact that most respondents do try to collect information on MI business in their cities, there is still a significant proportion that does not. This should not be taken as a sign of disinterest, but more as a symptom of how hard that task can sometimes be. There are segments within the Meetings Industry for which there is already good and structured information. This is the case for association meetings,for which there are already two consolidated international city rankings, provided by ICCA and UIA. In this context, trying to create a third within ECM may be unproductive.

 

Corporate meetings are a segment for which there is much less information. Sometimes it can be extremely hard to get data from the existent sources, and if the idea is to have comparable information for different cities, a second problem arises, deriving from the diverging criteria that each city may follow in its research.

Any ECM presence in this specific segment will probably have to be implemented gradually. Perhaps in a first phase, ECM should try to investigate good practices and obtain guidelines. In a second phase, clear, simple and easy-to-use criteria could be established, based on previous work.  These two phases are likely to provide sufficient conditions to start a benchmarking project.

It therefore seems that ECM will require the help and co-operation of ECM Conventions members to realise this project.

 

After analysing the results of the survey and presenting them to the knowledge group, ECM’s Research & Statistics Working Group decided to set up a pilot project to compare the data collected by a small group of member cities. The purpose of the pilot project is to analyse that information with a view to finding patterns common to those cities, without establishing any rankings of destinations. Amsterdam, Paris, Lyon, Valencia and Helsinki have all volunteered to provide their data and help the project, and it is likely that data will also soon be available from Vienna, Gothenburg and Lisbon.

 

André Moura

Member R&S Expert Group

Lisbon Visitor and Convention Bureau