Attrition Project

Project Attrition
Phase II Report: Examination of Event Attendee Behavior and Perceptions When Reserving Hotel Rooms
A Presentation of Eight Diverse Case Studies Resulting from a Survey of Event Attendees
July 31, 2004 Project Attrition is an initiative of the Convention Industry Council.
Project Attrition was made possible through the leadership of: ASAE Foundation American Hotel & Lodging Foundation MPI Foundation PCMA Education Foundation
Copyright 2004 by Convention Industry Council. This information may be duplicated or reproduced without expressed permission of CIC, provided that a copyright notice identifying CIC as the copyright owner appears along with the information being duplicated or reproduced.
Project Attrition Attendee Behavior Report Page 2 of 43
Project Attrition was made possible by generous support from the meetings, conventions and exhibitions industry. Lead contributors are:
Special thanks to:
precisionreports.com
Additional funders include:

ConferenceDirect
www.conferencedirect.com
Conferon, Inc.
www.conferon.com
Association of Destination Management Executives (ADME)

www.adme.org
Healthcare Convention & Exhibitors Association (HCEA)

www.hcea.org
Hospitality Sales & Marketing Association International (HSMAI)

www.hsmai.org
International Association for Exhibition Management (IAEM)

www.iaem.org
International Association of Convention & Visitors Bureaus (IACVB)

www.iacb.org
For more information on Project Attrition, contact the
Convention Industry Council 8201 Greensboro Drive, Suite 300 McLean, VA 22102 +1 (800) 725-8982 Fax: +1 (703) 610-9005 www.conventionindustry.org
REPORT CONTENTS
Report Section
Executive Summary Methodology Sample Instrument Data Collection Data Analysis Scope & Limitations Findings Conclusions
Page
7 15 15 16 16 16 16 18 38
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Data, tools and solutions developed through the Convention Industry Councils Project Attrition can help improve performance and communication within the meetings, conventions and exhibitions industry Research conducted by Precision Reports; Text written by Maxine Golding The block of hotel guest rooms that an event organizer secures for the use of attendees is critically important to the success of the event. Not only does it represent a contractual agreement between the event organizer and a hotel or third-party provider, it also serves as a base of negotiation for many other services the event requires. In exchange for the promise of guest room revenues, hotels offer benefits, concessions and minimum room rates to event organizers, who can provide additional amenities to their attendees and/or increase the events bottom line. Attrition the failure of an event organizer to meet contracted performance thresholds that protect the value of the room block can result in substantial financial losses for all concerned parties. A weakened economy, the explosive use of the Internet by attendees to book outside the block, and the resulting shortfalls in forecasted room pickup have elevated a challenging problem to the critical stage for events, conventions and exhibitions professionals. Over the past year and with the support and collaboration of all segments of the industry, the Convention Industry Council, through Project Attrition, has extensively researched the issue. A fresh base of data, targeted strategies, educational tools and resources has been developed to help industry professionals mitigate the impact of attrition. RESEARCH INTO ATTRITION AND ITS EFFECTS ON THE U.S. EVENTS INDUSTRY In its first phase of research1, Project Attrition examined 302 event organizers perceptions and actions concerning attrition. The survey data validates the popular claim that attrition is a rapidly growing problem for all sectors of the events industry. For their most recent event, 32 percent of respondents, who represent association, society,
The Project Attrition Final Report can be found in its entirety on the Convention Industry Council website at www.conventionindustry.org.
corporate and other sponsors, report having been assessed attrition fees, compared to just 4 percent five years earlier. This represents a sharp increase in assessment of attrition fees over the years 1998-2002/03. While event organizers in the sample still show relatively strong room pickup, averaging 90 percent, pickup drops to 81 percent for those who were actually assessed fees in 2002/03. And it plunges below 80 percent for those who report their formal plan to combat attrition was unsuccessful. Hotel stays are shorter, attendance is decreasing, and event organizers are slashing their blocks. The evidence: the ratio of registrants to number of room nights in the contracted block fell 24 percent from most previous event to most recent for respondents. All point to a considerable problem in the future for host organizations, whose event organizers face pressure to revise room block numbers downward even though this action may reduce the benefits and services that can be negotiated. Audits yield a high gain for event organizers, and when stipulated in hotel contracts prove their worth. A room block audit was performed at the most recent event by 58 percent of respondents, and the average pickup after the audit was 5 percent, a considerable percentage that could take a show out of attrition position. Formal organizational policies to cope with attrition translate into higher pickup. Of the more than half of respondents that have a formal policy, 80 percent felt it was successful, and the numbers support their contention. Average room night pickup was significantly higher (93 percent) for respondents who felt their plans to combat attrition were successful, than for those who did not (84 percent). The most successful plans to mitigate attrition contain one of three elements: Close monitoring of room block and clear and frequent communication with attendees and hoteliers. Aggressive audit provisions in contracts. Tailoring incentives and solutions to attendees through deep knowledge of their particular needs.
Lead time and registration method impact pickup. Pickup decreases as housing registration lead time lengthens. So, events with a shorter housing registration period tend to have higher pickup. Room prepayment, for event organizers who attempt it, is a successful strategy to improve pickup and mitigate attrition. It works for 91 percent of the nearly one in five respondents who ask attendees to prepay. Citywides tend to ask attendees to prepay at a much higher rate than single- and multiple-hotel-block events. The average percentage of room pickup was significantly higher for those who succeeded in getting attendees to prepay (92 percent) than for those who did not (77 percent). In summary, three significant practices of respondents were associated with higher pickup percentages:
1. Asking attendees to prepay, when successful, raised average pickup. 2. Auditing hotel bookings post-event raised average pickup by 5 percent. 3. Shortening lead times raised average pickups.
One caveat: Pickup percentage can rise from one year to the next if event organizers significantly lower the ratio of room nights to attendees (essentially cutting the block), as a defensive action on attrition. PERCEPTIONS AND HABITS OF EVENT ATTENDEES WHEN BOOKING HOTEL ROOMS In its second phase of research, Project Attrition queried attendees from events described in the first survey, developed detailed profiles of eight representative events, and found large patterns of booking perceptions and habits by those events attendees (11,874 of whom responded). Despite many variables within groups as well as differences from event to event, the profiles illuminate larger trends and tendencies relative to their type of event (medical society, trade association, and corporate, for example). Event organizers can compare their event with the profile that most closely resembles it by accessing the complete Project Attrition report at www.conventionindustry.org. Key findings, however, do cut across all profiles. Saving money is the No. 1 reason to book outside the block, say almost 50 percent of respondents (and 60 percent of those who pay their own way). Average savings: $40 to $70 per night. The next two reasons for booking outside the block, rated nearly equally by 25 percent of respondents, are control over the registration process and preference for a hotel. Clearly, attendees no longer believe that organizers have negotiated the lowest rate in the house. Companies extend control over the registration process by requiring employees to follow formal reservation policies. Well over half of respondents (56 percent) cite such a policy in effect for the profiled event they attended, leaving them no choice but to utilize hotel chains contracted for volume discounts. And the policy works, since companies pay for the hotel stay of 70 percent of respondents and nearly two-thirds of respondents make their own reservations. Attendees travel planning behavior is forever changed whether they pay their own event expenses or their companies pay. Required to make their own arrangements, many attendees are forced to quickly find and compare best prices. While the event resource was preferred by attendees at some of the events profiled, going direct to hotels was an important alternative for others. Similarly, use of travel agents was as high as 25 percent for one event, zero for another, while use of travel web sites stretched from a low of 1.7 for one profiled group to 20 percent for a different one. Good news: Attendees most frequently use the hotel booking resource. The resource provided by the event leads all others as used very often by just about half of respondents. Next in line: travel agents, followed by
direct to hotel, hotel web sites, and 800 numbers. Still, a quarter of respondents use the leading travel web sites very often, a number that is sure to balloon. Travel agents are still important to the hotel booking process because they enforce corporate travel mandates for their clients. About 12 percent of all respondents reserve their hotel stay through travel agents, and considerably more did so for three profiled events, among them a corporate trade show. Overwhelmingly, event attendees are unaware of the potential for attrition fees, and when they are aware, incentives and lower costs tend to rule their decision-making. Only one in five had any awareness at all of the issue, although attendees in one profiled event had significantly higher awareness (47 percent) than all others. Once attendees are informed, 22 percent would likely use the events process under any circumstance. However, incentives would be needed for one-third of respondents to consider using the events process, while the process would have to be less expensive for 36 percent. Attendees respond most strongly to incentives that reward them financially if they book within the block. The top incentive is a discount on event registration, followed by complimentary breakfast at hotel, exclusive access to free shuttle transportation, complimentary access to high-speed Internet in hotel room, and complimentary access to health club at hotel. Effective exhibitor strategies can make the difference in holding the block. While employers continue the pressure to cut travel expenses, more than half of exhibitors are more likely to reserve their hotels through the event even though they are notorious for constantly changing reservations. Event organizers can go far to fill their block by extending rewards to or setting requirements for exhibitors: giving priority booth location points for exhibitor guest rooms booked within the block, signing exhibitors to sub-blocks contracts, and making exhibitors book a minimum number of guest rooms within the block per set square footage. The best one-two punch to avoid attrition: Package discounted event registration and hotel booking online and shorten lead time. Online registration is enormously popular; nearly 80 percent of respondents use it, and the percentage is even higher for attendees at the largest events in the survey. Meanwhile, 38 percent of respondents reserve their hotels within 30 days, although the event profiles showed considerable differences in lead time booking. Still, compressing lead time and discounting the registration fee when attendees book within the block represent a highly effective joint action against attrition. Booking through the event resource rises significantly with the attendees age and years of membership in the host organization. The longer one is a member and the older the attendee, the more likely she is to book through the event organizer. Event organizers can ensure a strong base within the block by promoting to
and capturing those most loyal. The pattern, however, reverses itself for those booking through web sites: more 18-24 and 25-34 year-olds, fewer older attendees. Thats why event organizers should target attrition education strategies at the many new attendees who register each year. Almost one quarter of respondents had never registered for a hotel room for their particular event in the previous five years, and only 21 percent had registered just one time in those years. Likely to be younger web price shoppers, this attendee segment could be enticed with a registration discount package to book within the block. Even among loyal supporters, only 15 percent registered five times in the past five years for the event in question, an indicator that a strong base within the block may be eroding. Events still prove their economic value to hotels and destinations, a fact that reinforces the value of packaging as attrition-buster. More than 71 percent of attendees extended their stay an average of 2.15 room nights pre- or post-event. And almost two-thirds brought spouse or family members 92 percent for one very large profiled event. This propensity to spend more time and money at the show destination makes a discounted event package when the hotel is booked in the block even more attractive to attendees.
ACTIONS EVENT ORGANIZERS SHOULD TAKE TO MITIGATE ATTRITION

1. Revise housing and event registration options. Bundle housing and event registration. Offer tiered registration rates, discounting for those booking within the block. Present a choice of hotels by category. Provide exhibitors with subcontracts to the block. Shorten/condense the registration and housing period.
2. Offer complimentary services for booking within the block, such as shuttle transportation, breakfast, and Internet access. 3. Monitor the housing company, if you work with one. 4. Monitor travel/housing web sites that compete for your attendees. 5. Stipulate a formal audit in hotel contracts. 6. Require prepayment of rooms, if reasonable for your group. 7. Create a formal plan that has the best chance of combating attrition for your event. 8. Develop analytic tools to document group size, report rooms outside the room block, and right-size the block. 9. Create a plan to contact those who book outside the block, learn their reasons, and use this information in setting future actions 10. Promote the dollar value of all the components in the housing package. 11. Formulate strategies to offset group guest room pirates.
12. Use simple data collection policies for example, to request emergency information for attendees and extrapolate the totals into future blocks. 13. Know your members and constituents: Tailor specific marketing programs towards attendee segments according to their chosen methods of booking. Discern patterns specific to your organization in attendees booking outside the block. Include rooms outside the contracted block in history templates in order to establish booking patterns by type of event and venue. SUCCESSFUL STRATEGIES FROM CASE STUDIES No single strategy alone is enough to eliminate the risk of attrition. Organizations that have successfully reduced or prevented attrition are utilizing multiple managerial techniques and strategies with incentives for attendees to change their behavior and make a room reservation inside the contracted guest room block. A series of case studies are available in the complete Project Attrition report at www.conventionindustry.com. Among the most successful strategies event organizers described to Project Attrition are: Packaging the hotel room with event registration. Educating attendees of the negative impact of choosing hotel accommodations outside the contracted guest room block. Replacing early bird registration with a discount for room reservations inside the contracted block. Requiring an audit in hotel contracts. Making shuttle passes available at hotel check-in only for individuals staying in the block.
Case Study Examples: Insurance Accounting & Systems Association (IASA) responded to an attrition liability of $200,00 after its 2002 Annual Meeting & Tradeshow by discounting the registration fee for attendees that stayed in a contracted hotel; educated attendees and exhibitors about attrition; offered valuable incentives (complimentary badges and priority points for booth placement the following year) to exhibitors for each hotel reservation at a contracted hotel. VNU Expositions, Inc. initiated a mandatory shuttle pass, distributed by hotels upon check-in to those staying in the room block. Options hit non-participants in the pocketbook: taking taxicabs to the convention; purchasing a wristband; changing the reservation at the front desk to reflect participation in the room block. EDUCATIONAL TOOLS The following templates were developed through Project Attrition and are available to all industry professionals on the Convention Industry Councils web site: www.conventionindustry.org.
Project Attrition Template 1 Event Organizer Timeline for Events With a Signed Contract To be used for an event coming up in the next year that anticipates attrition fees, this timeline offers event organizers tactical suggestions for minimizing potential attrition and maximizing utilization of event-contracted guest room blocks. Project Attrition Template 2 Event Organizer Timeline for Events Without a Signed Contract To prepare event organizers for contract negotiations on future events, this timeline offers tactical approaches in building long-term commitments and managing data about attendee and exhibitor habits and behavior. Project Attrition Template 3 Hotelier Timeline for Events For hotel sales and service personnel, this timeline assists in managing communication with customers over the next year and suggests ways to market the upcoming event, minimize potential attrition, and maximize event profit for the hotel. Project Attrition Template 4 Convention & Visitors Bureau Timeline for Events For the convention and visitor bureau sales and service personnel, this timeline helps manage communication with customers over the next year and offers tactics to help market the upcoming event, minimize potential attrition and maximize event profit for the destination. DECISION-MAKING MATRIX Project Attrition has developed an extensive matrix that describes attrition tools, whom they impact, likelihood of their success, tips in utilizing, and concerns to anticipate. This is also available to all industry professionals on the Convention Industry Councils web site: www.conventionindustry.org. The highest valued tools impacting event organizers: Regularly check web sites to compare rates at contracted and non-contracted hotels. Include in hotel contracts a guest room inventory review and credit for bookings outside the block. Negotiate rock-bottom rates. Add expenses to the registration fee, rather than the guest room rate. (The latter, more typically the choice of event organizers, forces attendees to shop around for lower hotel rates.) The highest valued tools impacting exhibitors: Extra priority booth location points for exhibitor guest rooms reserved and utilized through event-contracted housing. Minimum of two guest rooms booked in the block per 100 square feet of exhibit space. Minimum block within event-contracted housing for all sponsors.
The highest valued tool impacting exhibitors and attendees: Allow registration to individuals that have reserved guest rooms at event-contracted hotels.
The highest valued tool impacting attendees: Provide a registration fee discount for each room reserved and utilized in the block. ATTRITION PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE Event organizers should be wary as they approach attrition planning for future events. First, no single solution will work for all groups; event organizers should customize a set of tools (such as those presented here) based on the very particular needs of their individual events and their attendees, exhibitors and sponsors. Second, solutions that work best for the short term may offer little advantage when markets turn. While it may be expedient to cut the size of the block, this decision could leave event organizers well short of the hotel rooms they need just as a recovering hotel market yields less available inventory. Constant and consistent monitoring of event developments and market conditions will assure event organizers that they are taking the best course of action for the financial success of their organizations event.
METHODOLOGY
Sample
In Phase One of the Project Attrition study, we collected data from 342 meeting planners about their latest annual or primary meeting. We asked for and received information about how the housing aspect of the meeting was planned, with a focus on issues theorized to be associated with attrition. On the concluding page of the Phase One questionnaire, respondents had the opportunity to volunteer to participate in phase two of our study, one that would have us survey those who attended the meetings described in phase one. Their commitment would mean that they would share their registration database with us, and allow us to invite their attendees to complete an online questionnaire. (Alternatively, the meeting planner could send an email invitation him or herself, one that would direct the recipient to the online questionnaire.) 40 indicated definite interest in participating. In addition to this communication, we emailed each of the meeting planners who expressed interest in participating (definitely or maybe) in phase 2 an additional note encouraging them to participate. If a meeting planner responded to our invitation either by phone or email, we followed up with that meeting planner and discussed in detail the procedure for their participation. 32 groups eventually committed to participate in phase 2. Of those, 22 actually shared their databases and met the criteria for timeliness necessary to participate. In all, 22 meetings and 24,278 meeting registrants (attendees and exhibitors) responded. In our analysis of the data collected in phase two, we selected 8 groups that appeared, across the criteria noted, to be fairly representative of our Phase one respondents, and that represented distinct segments of the meeting industry such that most meeting planners would be able to identify with one of the eight groups meeting experience. Specifically, we selected 8 different cases which fairly represented the types of meetings represented in Phase one, across three criteria: 1) Type of event; 2) Type of Host; and 3) Type of room block. Additionally, the groups we chose to present represent the full spectrum of size of event, each representing an attendee count on either side of the average for the type of meeting it represented. In all, our 8 segments represent 11,874 respondents.2
This represents the net number of cases (records) after we removed records that appeared to have errant data or represented extreme outliers for key variables.
Instrument
The surveys data collection instrument was an online questionnaire, hosted on Precision Reports servers. Items for the questionnaire were developed through discussions and review by industry experts and based on the desire to understand the choices attendees make in the context of how the meeting is planned and presented to attendees.
Data Collection
Precision Reports emailed invitations to potential respondents and kept the questionnaire available online for 21 calendar days, sending a reminder email to potential respondents who had yet to respond on days 7 and 14. Each invitation or reminder contained a pre-coded hyperlink the respondent could click whereupon a browser containing the online questionnaire would appear on the users computer screen. Accessing the online questionnaire, respondents entered or checked choices presented to them and their responses were automatically written to a database secured by Precision Reports servers.
Data Analysis
The resulting data file was prepared for analysis and cleaned of any errant data. Key dependent variables were explored and any resulting outlying data was considered for exclusion. Precision Reports analysts tabulated clean responses and cross tabulate key dependent variables with primary independent variables. T-tests were performed to ascertain any statistically significant differences between demographic segments. Upon reviewing the initial data run, Precision Reports analysts chose to select 8 cases or events to profile as representative of the diversity across the 342 meetings contained in the data collected during Phase One of the study. These cases were explored across several key variables to identify areas of convergence and divergence. A matrix was developed to present examples of convergence and divergence determined to be most relevant to meeting planners.
The Case Study Approach

The benefit of the case study approach is that we can see most dramatically how idiosyncratic the attrition situation can be; the variables that impact attendee behavior are multiple and some key ones may be unique to the type of organization hosting the meeting. At the same time, the case study method affords us the chance to spot those patterns which appear consistent across very diverse cases, observations which suggest areas where all meeting planners should focus their attention.
Scope & Limitations

The current study was designed to serve as an exploratory study into the behavior and perceptions of event attendees, particularly with respect to how the attendees reserve hotel rooms for their attendance at the events.
The study uses a convenience sample, solicited from respondents to a previous survey of meeting planners that Precision Reports conducted during April September, 2003. Because the study uses a convenience sample, it does not intend to extend its findings to the entire event attendee population, nor does it intend to describe the dynamics of all events, whether the dynamics be housing related or not. The scope of the study is limited to an extensive examination of eight diverse case studies that fairly represent the breadth (in size, type, and content) of professionally produced events, with the expectation that at least one of the eight will be of keen interest to most meeting planners. Readers are advised to use the studys key findings and conclusions as guides to examining and improving their own meeting experiences. We believe the patterns of convergence and divergence of experience across the eight different cases that are presented in this study to be highly valuable in guiding hypotheses for future studies at the micro level within event host organizations, as well as at the macro level, using a random sample of the event attendee population. We also believe that the studys findings and conclusions will immediately point event planners in the direction of solutions to attrition-related issues they may be facing.
FINDINGS
This Findings section is organized by patterns that we have observed during analysis and that we determined to be relevant to how event planners design and market their events. We paid the closest attention to those patterns that would impact how the planner may need to treat different segments of the meeting audience (e.g. Newer attendees vs. more experienced attendees). As we stated in the methodology section, we have selected eight representative cases from our database from PhaseTwo of the Project Attrition study to examine patterns that can guide meeting planners in their thinking. That is, if there is consistency across each of our diverse cases, there is reason to focus attention on these issues as they represent a consistency in respondent perceptions and behavior, regardless of the nature of the their industry or the event itself. And, if there is a case that a particular event planner identifies with, the planner can explore the data associated with this profile and see if he or she has experienced similar issues with his or her meeting. In the findings section, we present both overall (aggregate) trends for our eight profiles and, where the profiles diverge significantly from one another, we present data broken down by the profiles themselves. In this way, the readers attention will be directed to both the convergence and divergence across the different profiles. We also look carefully at aggregate and test for pull or statistical differences between groups whereby profiles with large response may skew results. In such cases, where possible, we present the data broken down by each of our cases.
Pattern 1: When viewed in the context of diverse cases, the pattern of hotel resources event attendees choose to use is idiosyncratic, suggesting that event planners must carefully examine the unique nature of their audiences and event.
The following matrix describes both the make up of each of the eight events weve selected and also contains some key findings resulting from attendee feedback. Note that while it appears that these events had different experiences in terms of keeping registrants within the room block, in many cases their experiences were similar in terms of which factors are associated with keeping registrants within the block. For example, while Profiles 2 and Profile 5 are vastly different in terms of size and percentage of registrants who remained within the event room block, they are similar in that new attendees make up a similar proportion of their total attendees and, in both cases, newer attendees booked outside or around the block at higher rates than more veteran attendees (this is discussed in greater detail in the section labeled Pattern 2.)
Profile 1 EVENT CHARACTERISTICS Meeting Type Host Type Industry Room Block Type Host City Length of Event Housing Management Meeting Registrants Meeting Exhibitors Room Nights in Block Room Night Pick Up Room Nights Last Year Pick Up Last Year Register Online Register Offline Reg/Housing Combined RESERVATION SOURCES Meeting/Event Online Travel Sites Travel Agent Company Intranet Direct to Hotel (Tel, Web) Other NA $ saved around/outside SEGMENTATION ISSUES Size of Company Had Impact on Hotel Resource Used Having a Company Policy on Hotel Reservations in No No
4 3
Profile 2 Convention Association Medical Single Hotel San Francisco 3 Days None 250-499 <100 250-499 250-499 500-749 250-749 Yes Yes No
Profile 3 Tradeshow Corporation Trade Single Hotel Atlanta 3 Days Hotel 1,500-2,499 500-999 1000-1,499 750-999 0 0 Yes Yes No
Profile 4 Convention Association Electronics Single Hotel Atlanta 6 Days In House Staff 500-999 100-249 2,500-3,499 2,500-3,499 3,500-4,999 2,500-3,499 Yes Yes Yes
Profile 5 Tradeshow Association Trade City Wide Las Vegas 4 Days Housing Cmpny 50,000+ NA 50,000+ 35,000-49,999 50,000+ 35,000-49,999 Yes Yes Yes
Profile 6 Convention Association Medical City Wide Chicago 6 Days Housing Cmpny 50,000+ 25,000-34,999 50,000+ 50,000+ 50,000+ 50,000+ Yes Yes Yes
Profile 7 Convention Association High Tech Multi-Hotel Baltimore 6 Days Housing Cmpny 5,000-7,499 1,000-1,499 7,500-9,999 7,500-9999 1,0001,499 10,000-14,999 Yes Yes No
Profile 8 Convention Association Information Multi-Hotel New York 6 Days Housing Cmpny 5,000-7,499 NA 10,000-14,999 5,000 7,499 10,000-14,999 8,850 Yes Yes No
Convention Association Government Multi-Hotel Portland, OR 4 Days None 1,000-1,499 <100 500-999 500-999 500-999 500-999 Yes Yes No 19.4% 7.7% .0% 1.3% 65.2% 3.9% 2.6% $55
48.3% 8.7% 3.7% .8% 32.6% 5.0% .8% $69
18.6% 20.0% 18.6% .0% 35.7% 5.7% 1.4% $41
67.8% 1.7% 7.5% 5.2% 16.7% 1.1% .0% $52
27.2% 17.3% 13.6% 1.8% 30.4% 8.7% .9% $62
71.7% 5.7% 6.8% 1.1% 10.3% 4.1% .3% $59
28.3% 11.6% 25.5% 7.8% 20.3% 5.5% 1.0% $48
39.8% 13.3% 9.2% 4.5% 26.0% 6.5% .7% $70
No No
No No
No No
Yes Yes
No Yes
No Yes
No No
3 4
Includes Expedia, Orbitz, Trvelocity, Hotels.com, Hotwire, Priceline This figure represents the amount reported by those who indicated they used a resource other than the events in order to save money. The figure is based on per room night savings and are rounded to the nearest
dollar.
Profile 1 Effect had an Impact on Hotel Resources Used Previous Experience Registering for This Meeting had an Impact on Hotel Resources Used Percentage of Registrants who had registered for meeting less than 2 times in past 5 years There was a difference in how Exhibitors and Attendees tended to use Hotel Sources No
Profile 2
Profile 3
Profile 4
Profile 5
Profile 6
Profile 7
Profile 8
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
60%
27%
83%
27%
52%
36%
41%
35%
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Pattern 2: New attendees represent a large segment of most events overall attendance and are more likely to go outside/around the block and as well as use travel agents in particular.
Across all of the cases, the ratio of new attendees to total attendees is significant (between 25% and 50%). At the same time, the new attendee segment (less than 2 registrations in the past five years) is the highest group that registered outside or around the block.
Use of Hotel Reservation Resource by Number of Times Registered for Event in Past Five Years
Hotel Resource
Meeting/Event Online Travel Travel Agent
60.0%
Company Intranet Direct to Hotel Other NA
% of Respondents
40.0%
20.0%
0.0% 0 1 2 3 4 5
# of Times Registered for Event in Past Five Years

Number of Times Registered for This Event in Past 5 years 0 1 2 3 4 5 29.2% 36.3% 38.1% 43.8% 55.7% 57.7% 14.3% 18.7% 2.9% 23.7% 9.5% 1.6% 15.5% 12.0% 2.4% 26.7% 6.8% .4% 14.6% 10.4% 1.7% 28.3% 6.4% .5% 13.2% 9.1% 2.2% 24.0% 7.0% .7% 10.4% 7.7% 1.0% 20.5% 4.2% .3% 7.8% 6.9% 1.6% 20.8% 4.7% .4%
Hotel Resource Used
Meeting/Event Online Travel Travel Agent Company Intranet Direct to Hotel Other NA
Reinforcing the pattern that newer attendees tend to use the events housing process less than do more experienced attendees is the pattern revealing that those who have been members of the events host organization for less time tend to book outside and/or around the block at a rate higher than those who have been members longer.
Use of Hotel Reservation Resource by Years as Member of Event Host Organization
Hotel Resource
Meeting/Event
50.0%
Online Travel Travel Agent Company Intranet Direct to Hotel Other NA
% of Respondents
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
1-2 3-5
6-10 11-20
more than 20 NA
Years As Member of Host Organization
Hotel Resource Used
Meeting/Event Online Travel Travel Agent Company Intranet Direct to Hotel Other NA
1-2 30.4% 16.6% 14.5% 2.2% 27.7% 7.3% 1.3%
Years as Member of Host Organization 3-5 6-10 11-20 20+ 41.3% 42.7% 50.7% 56.7% 12.7% 10.9% 2.7% 24.0% 7.6% .7% 12.0% 9.6% 2.9% 25.5% 6.5% .7% 9.3% 9.5% 1.6% 22.2% 6.3% .4% 9.0% 6.2% 1.8% 21.5% 4.5% .2%
NA 29.6% 16.7% 10.2% 4.6% 26.9% 9.3% 2.8%
Pattern 3: A large percentage of attendees bring family to events and add room nights outside of the meeting period and this is true of both new and experienced attendees alike.
% of Respondents who Reserved Extra Room Nights Before and/or After the Event
Column %
60.0%
% of Respondents
Reserve Additional Room Nights
Yes No
71.3% 28.7%
40.0%
20.0%
0.0% Yes No
Reserve Additional Room Nights?
% of Respondents Who Brought Spouse/Family to Event by Profile
Bring Spouse/Family
Yes No
75.0%
% of Respondents
50.0%
25.0%
0.0% Profile 1 Profile 2 Profile 3 Profile 4 Profile 5 Profile 6 Profile 7 Profile 8
Profile
Yes No
Profile 1 81.9% 18.1%
Profile 2 50.0% 50.0%
Profile 3 87.1% 12.9%
Profile 4 60.9% 39.1%
Profile 5 53.5% 46.5%
Profile 6 71.6% 28.4%
Profile 7 92.3% 7.7%
Profile 8 72.5% 27.5%
% of Respondents who Reserved Additional Hotel Rooms Before And/or After Event by # of Years Registered in Past Five Years Reserve Additional Hotel Rooms?
Yes No
75.0%
% of Respondents
50.0%
25.0%
0.0% 0 1 2 3 4 5
# of Years Registered - Last Five Years
Yes No
0 73.8% 26.2%
1 71.5% 28.5%
2 69.4% 30.6%
3 70.7% 29.3%
4 72.2% 27.8%
5 70.3% 29.7%
How many additional nights added?

Profile Profile 4 Profile 5 Mean Mean 1.18 2.03
How Many?
Profile 1 Mean 1.41
Profile 2 Mean 2.16
Profile 3 Mean 2.25
Profile 6 Mean 1.76
Profile 7 Mean 1.77
Profile 8 Mean 2.10
Pattern 4: The primary reason for going outside and/or around the block appears to be cost related, but control also appears potentially to be a considerable attendee concern, either as a result of personal preference or possibly of company policy.
As the following table shows, the percentage of respondents who report they went around or outside the block for reasons of more control or ensuring preferences rival and, in some cases, surpass the percentage of those who report avoiding the event block for monetary reasons.
Reasons for Avoiding Block
I Saved Money The Event's Housing Registration Process Was Not Yet Open The Event's Housing Registration Process Was Closed The Meeting Room Block was Full The Event's Registration Process Did Not Offer the Dates I Wanted The Event's Registration Process Did Not Offer the Room Type I Wanted The Event's Registration Process Did Not Offer the Hotel I Wanted I Wanted More Control Over the Hotel Registration Process and Ability to Track/Confirm I Had Bonus Points with a Particular Hotel and Was Able to Apply Them I Was Able to Get Rooms at a Reduced Rate as Part of an Air/Hotel Package I Had a Preference for a Hotel so I Went Direct It Seemed Better for My Spouse/Family to Use an Alternate Source The Hotels the Meeting Offered in Walking Distance of the Meeting/Event Were Full I Wanted to Be in the Headquarters Hotel But Couldn't Get a Room Through the Meeting/Event Other Reason
Profile 1 Column % 26.3% 1.7% 6.8% 23.7% .8% .8% 2.5% 22.0% 3.4% .0% 8.5% .8% 2.5% 11.9% 29.7%
Profile 2 Column % 26.1% 8.4% 10.1% 27.7% 1.7% 4.2% 6.7% 22.7% 4.2% 1.7% 14.3% 3.4% 3.4% 12.6% 26.1%
Profile 3 Column % 51.9% .0% .0% 3.8% 1.9% .0% 1.9% 26.9% 7.7% 13.5% 5.8% 1.9% 1.9% 9.6% 15.4%
Profile Profile 4 Profile 5 Column % Column % 36.7% 50.2% .0% 2.0% 2.0% .0% 2.0% 4.1% 30.6% 4.1% 2.0% 8.2% .0% 2.0% .0% 32.7% 2.0% 8.5% 10.2% 2.6% 3.2% 11.9% 25.4% 5.1% 13.4% 26.7% 5.0% 4.8% 2.5% 15.0%
Profile 6 Column % 37.9% 5.0% 11.1% 10.5% 2.3% 2.8% 6.8% 24.2% 3.3% 6.0% 24.6% 4.4% 5.8% 2.0% 24.5%
Profile 7 Column % 43.2% 2.5% 12.3% 17.4% 1.7% 1.5% 6.1% 24.1% 4.9% 4.4% 13.5% .5% 11.3% 5.7% 18.7%
Profile 8 Column % 66.6% 3.4% .8% 2.0% .8% 3.7% 11.9% 22.1% 2.3% 2.8% 25.5% 4.0% 1.4% 2.3% 34.0%
Pattern 5: The average per night savings from those who went outside and/or around the block is between $40 and $70 per night and nearly 60% of those who went around and/or outside the block report they would only use the event process if they saved money.
Amount of Money Saved
Profile 1 Mean 54.81
Profile Profile 4 Profile 5 Mean Mean 51.67 62.48
Reasons for Avoiding Block
I Saved Money The Event's Housing Registration Process Was Not Yet Open The Event's Housing Registration Process Was Closed The Meeting Room Block was Full The Event's Registration Process Did Not Offer the Dates I Wanted The Event's Registration Process Did Not Offer the Room Type I Wanted The Event's Registration Process Did Not Offer the Hotel I Wanted I Wanted More Control Over the Hotel Registration Process and Ability to Track/Confirm It I Had Bonus Points with a Particular Hotel and Was Able to Apply Them I Was Able to Get Rooms at a Reduced Rate as Part of an Air/Hotel Package I Had a Preference for a Hotel so I Went Direct It Seemed Better for My Spouse/Family to Use an Alternate Source The Hotels the Meeting Offered in Walking Distance of the Meeting/Event Were Full I Wanted to Be in the Headquarters Hotel But Couldn't Get a Room Through the Meeting/Even Other Reason
Response to Attrition Explanation -- Likely Future Action Consider Consider using the using the Not consider event's event's the event's Use the event's process process process under Response process under with only if less any any not listed circumstances incentives expensive circumstances above Column % Column % Column % Column % Column % 26.8% 45.3% 57.8% 50.9% 38.8% 3.7% 13.3% 14.5% 1.3% 1.7% 4.2% 11.5% 2.7% 5.3% 15.1% 1.0% 4.5% 5.2% 25.0% 2.8% 7.5% 10.9% 2.5% 3.1% 10.7% 27.3% 5.3% 11.1% 27.6% 5.3% 4.6% 2.3% 14.8% 2.1% 8.7% 10.4% 2.2% 2.5% 9.9% 25.1% 4.7% 12.1% 22.4% 4.3% 5.7% 2.8% 15.2% 3.6% 3.6% 4.2% 3.0% 6.0% 16.2% 43.1% 6.6% 10.2% 35.9% 4.2% 3.6% 1.8% 23.4% 2.6% 7.8% 9.7% 3.2% 5.3% 15.7% 24.0% 3.2% 7.8% 28.3% 4.3% 4.9% 5.1% 34.9%
Pattern 5: Most attendees are unaware that the event host may incur performance fees but, when made aware, most are willing to cooperate on some level.
In the following graphs and tables, we see that respondents were generally unaware of the issues confronting the event host with respect to performance fees. They also reveal that most attendees are willing to help on some level address the performance fee issue.
% of Respondents
50.0% 75.0%
% of Respondents who were aware that meeting sponsor could incurr performance fees
25.0%
0.0% Yes No
Aware?
Likelihood of Using Event Housing Registration Process After Learning of Meeting Host's Potential Performance Fee Problems
30.0%
% of Respondents
20.0%
10.0%
0.0% Under Any Circumstances Only if Less Expensive Only With Incentives Response not listed Not Use at All
Likely Response
Under Any Circumstances Only With Incentives Only if Less Expensive Not Use at All Response not listed
Column % 21.8% 32.3% 36.1% 1.9% 7.9%
Pattern 5: Reponses to questions about preferences in general and incentives in particular yield some indication as to how event planners might manage the housing process. While the general pattern portrayed by the following graphs hold true across the eight cases, successful incentive design is likely to differ slightly from group to group as some groups value a few of the incentives higher than others.
Relative Value Placed on Potential Incentives (Mean Score based on 1-5 Scale, "1" indicating "Very Unlikely" and "5" Indicating "Very Likely")
Key to Incentive Option
Discount on Meeting/Event Registration Complimentary Breakfast at Your Hotel Exclusive Access to Free Shuttle Transportation to Convetion Center Complimentary Access to High Speed Internet In Hotel Room Complimentary Access to Health Club at Hotel Exclusive Invitations to Special Parties/Events Exclusive Access to Special Sessions with Colleagues Unlimited Access to Cyber Cafe on Show Floor
4.00
Average Rating
3.00
Exclusive Access to Program Changes and Additional Speaker Information
2.00
1.00
Discount on Meeting/Event Registration Exclusive Access to Free Shuttle Shuttle Transportation to Convetion Center Exclusive Access to Special Sessions with Colleagues Exclusive Invitations to Special Parties/Events Unlimited Access to Cyber Cafe on Show Floor Exclusive Access to Program Changes and Additional Speaker Information Complimentary Access to Health Club at Hotel Complimentary Access to High Speed Internet In Hotel Room Complimentary Breakfast at Your Hotel
Profile 1 Mean 4.42 3.95 3.06 3.02 2.76 2.70 3.12 3.40 4.10
Profile 2 Mean 4.34 3.80 3.10 3.16 3.12 2.84 4.13 3.90 4.08
Profile 3 Mean 4.19 3.70 3.18 3.51 3.07 3.01 3.25 3.45 3.96
Profile 4 Mean 4.19 3.36 3.05 3.03 2.64 2.64 3.34 3.76 3.62
Profile 5 Mean 4.15 3.89 3.21 3.46 2.90 2.92 3.36 3.52 3.89
Profile 6 Mean 4.32 4.16 3.13 3.36 3.18 2.94 3.58 3.89 4.20
Profile 7 Mean 4.08 3.61 3.03 3.06 2.98 2.74 3.08 3.89 3.88
Profile 8 Mean 4.20 3.58 2.81 3.11 2.98 2.62 3.14 3.41 3.86
Likelihood of Using Event Process For Housing Registration if Discount on Event Registration Were Offered
40.0%
% of Respondents
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
Very Unlikely
Neither Likely nor Unlikely Unlikely Likely
Very Likely
Likelihood of Using
Very Unlikely Unlikely Neither Likely nor Unlikely Likely Very Likely
Column % 4.1% 3.4% 8.2% 36.8% 47.4%
Likelihood of Using Event Process For Housing Registration if Exclusive Access to Convention Center Shuttle Were Offered
30.0%
% of Respondents
20.0%
10.0%
0.0% Very Unlikely Neither Likely nor Unlikely Unlikely Likely
Very Likely
Likelihood of Using
Column % 5.6% 7.1% 14.9% 35.6% 36.8%
Likelihood of Using Event Process For Housing Registration if Exclusive Access to Special Sessions with Colleagues Were Offered
30.0%
% of Respondents
20.0%
10.0%
Very Likely
Likelihood of Using
Column % 9.3% 18.3% 33.2% 27.2% 12.0%
Likelihood of Using Event Process For Housing Registration if Exclusive Invitations to Parties/Events Were Offered
30.0%
% of Respondents
20.0%
10.0%
Very Likely
Likelihood of Using
Column % 8.0% 14.9% 27.1% 32.1% 17.9%
Likelihood of Using Event Process For Housing Registration if Unlimited Access to a Cyber Cafe on Show/Meeting Floor were Offered
30.0%
% of Respondents
20.0%
10.0%
Very Likely
Likelihood of Using
Column % 12.5% 20.7% 33.7% 22.7% 10.5%
Likelihood of Using Event Process For Housing Registration if Exclusive Access to Program Changes and Additional Speaker Information
40.0%
% of Respondents
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
Very Unlikely
Very Likely
Likelihood of Using
Column % 11.7% 22.2% 38.7% 20.8% 6.6%
Likelihood of Using Event Process For Housing Registration if Complimentary Access to Hotel Health Club Were Offered
30.0%
% of Respondents
20.0%
10.0%
Very Likely
Likelihood of Using
Column % 9.3% 14.7% 25.2% 28.9% 21.9%
Likelihood of Using Event Process For Housing Registration if Complimentary Access to High Speed Internet at Hotel Were Offered
30.0%
% of Respondents
20.0%
10.0%
Very Likely
Likelihodd of Using
Column % 7.2% 11.4% 21.1% 31.1% 29.2%
Likelihood of Using Event Process For Housing Registration if Complimentary Breakfast at Hotel Were Offered
40.0%
% of Respondents
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
Very Unlikely
Very Likely
Likelihood of Using
Column % 4.3% 5.2% 15.8% 39.0% 35.7%
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the current studys finding, particularly when placed in the context of information about each event gathered in Phase One of the Project Attrition study, we offer the following conclusions: 1. Planners must segment their audience for marketing and/or programming purposes, particularly new attendees versus meeting veterans. New attendees make up between 25-80% of event attendees across our cases and this segment is most likely to go outside and/or around the event room block. Registrants who may have different experience and/or interests with should receive targeted marketing material and should be flagged for follow up. Planners may want to produce and promote special new member/new attendee functions at host hotels and provide new member information packets at host hotels. Making new members feel as integrated as possible into the host organization and/or show is critical to establishing allegiance and loyalty. 2. Planners must keep in mind that a significant percentage of their audience likes to exercise control over the registration process. As well, as considerable portion of attendees (27%) must follow an organizational policy for reserving hotel room at events. This understanding might translate into ensuring that any housing process controlled by the event or its housing company is highly responsive and communicative with the registrant. The planner should also become acquainted with as many corporate policies as possible. 3. Planners should target approximately $40-$70 additional value and or savings for each night an attendee is at the event. This could be accomplished through a combination of Registration Fee discount and complimentary savings at the hotel such as breakfast, high speed Internet access, and/or complimentary health club use. Planners should also educate attendees on additional costs that may be associated with staying in hotels outside of the events room block, such as extra cab fare, as well as the drawback of missing out on the action of ongoing networking activities. 4. Planners should educate their members on the issue of performance fees and clearly communicate what the Event is willing to do to help the registrant cooperate with them (i.e. incentives). Most respondents indicated they are willing to cooperate in some way if the event host offered some form of incentive but are generally unaware that issue exists. 5. Planners should be aware that the current issue with online reservations may be more in relation to hotel sites online rather than the independent travel sites such as Expedia, Travelocity, etc. In each of our 8 cases, attendees tended to go directly to hotels than use online travel sites, even when the event used housing companies rather than directing attendees to a single hotel (as in the case of single hotel events). 6. Planners should be aware that traditional travel agents still play a sizeable role as sources for hotel
reservations, especially among newer attendees. Travel agencies may also be linked to corporate policy on hotel reservations, presenting a path for the planner to follow in order to learn more about the attendees decision making process.
Project Attrition is an initiative of the Convention Industry Council. www.conventionindustry.org

Attrition Project

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Attrition Project

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Project Attrition

Project Attrition Attendee Behavior Report Page 2 of 43

Special thanks to:

Project Attrition Attendee Behavior Report Page 3 of 43

Additional funders include:

Association of Destination Management Executives (ADME)

Healthcare Convention & Exhibitors Association (HCEA)

Hospitality Sales & Marketing Association International (HSMAI)

International Association for Exhibition Management (IAEM)

International Association of Convention & Visitors Bureaus (IACVB)

For more information on Project Attrition, contact the

Project Attrition Attendee Behavior Report Page 4 of 43

Project Attrition Attendee Behavior Report Page 5 of 43

Project Attrition Attendee Behavior Report Page 6 of 43

Project Attrition Attendee Behavior Report Page 7 of 43

Project Attrition Attendee Behavior Report Page 8 of 43

Project Attrition Attendee Behavior Report Page 9 of 43

Project Attrition Attendee Behavior Report Page 10 of 43

Project Attrition Attendee Behavior Report Page 11 of 43

Project Attrition Attendee Behavior Report Page 12 of 43

ACTIONS EVENT ORGANIZERS SHOULD TAKE TO MITIGATE ATTRITION

Project Attrition Attendee Behavior Report Page 13 of 43

Project Attrition Attendee Behavior Report Page 14 of 43

Project Attrition Attendee Behavior Report Page 15 of 43

Project Attrition Attendee Behavior Report Page 16 of 43

Project Attrition Attendee Behavior Report Page 17 of 43

The Case Study Approach

Scope & Limitations

Project Attrition Attendee Behavior Report Page 18 of 43

Project Attrition Attendee Behavior Report Page 19 of 43

Project Attrition Attendee Behavior Report Page 20 of 43

48.3% 8.7% 3.7% .8% 32.6% 5.0% .8% $69

18.6% 20.0% 18.6% .0% 35.7% 5.7% 1.4% $41

67.8% 1.7% 7.5% 5.2% 16.7% 1.1% .0% $52

27.2% 17.3% 13.6% 1.8% 30.4% 8.7% .9% $62

71.7% 5.7% 6.8% 1.1% 10.3% 4.1% .3% $59

28.3% 11.6% 25.5% 7.8% 20.3% 5.5% 1.0% $48

39.8% 13.3% 9.2% 4.5% 26.0% 6.5% .7% $70

Company Intranet Direct to Hotel Other NA

# of Times Registered for Event in Past Five Years

Hotel Resource Used

Project Attrition Attendee Behavior Report Page 23 of 43

Use of Hotel Reservation Resource by Years as Member of Event Host Organization

Online Travel Travel Agent Company Intranet Direct to Hotel Other NA

Years As Member of Host Organization

Hotel Resource Used

1-2 30.4% 16.6% 14.5% 2.2% 27.7% 7.3% 1.3%

NA 29.6% 16.7% 10.2% 4.6% 26.9% 9.3% 2.8%

Reserve Additional Room Nights

Reserve Additional Room Nights?

Project Attrition Attendee Behavior Report Page 24 of 43

% of Respondents Who Brought Spouse/Family to Event by Profile

0.0% Profile 1 Profile 2 Profile 3 Profile 4 Profile 5 Profile 6 Profile 7 Profile 8

Profile 1 81.9% 18.1%

Profile 2 50.0% 50.0%

Profile 3 87.1% 12.9%

Profile 4 60.9% 39.1%

Profile 5 53.5% 46.5%

Profile 6 71.6% 28.4%

Profile 7 92.3% 7.7%

Profile 8 72.5% 27.5%

# of Years Registered - Last Five Years

Project Attrition Attendee Behavior Report Page 25 of 43