MEETINGS MEAN BUSINESS

2015 Government Meetings Study

2

Landscape & Background

LandscapeIn the U.S, Federal government agencies were limiting travel because of tight budgets and onerous travel restrictions introduced as a result of highly publicized abuses of government meeting spending

BackgroundMeetings Mean Business, a U.S based coalition created to showcase the incredible value that business meetings, travel and events bring to the U.S. economy, decided to launch a campaign targeting policy makers and influencers regarding the value of government participation in meetings, events and conferences

3

Objectives of the Study

• To better understand how federal government workers find value in meetings, conferences, conventions and events.

• To help the coalition better advocate for our industry to this important stakeholder group.

• To tell a story about the impact of current restrictive policies and why face-to-face interaction is so critical.

4

Methodology

• Mixed-mode survey among 164 government travel influencers conducted between February 9 and March 16, 2015

• Government travel influencers were those who worked in the Administration (70%), Congress (20%) or the private sector (10%) and are responsible for at least one of the following as part of their current position and role:

• Make or evaluate meeting logistics, location and other travel decisions for government conferences, meetings or other special events;

• Set, influence or enforce government travel policies; or• Set their private organization’s travel policies which is either required to follow or

largely influenced by government policies

• Survey questionnaire was informed by two focus groupsessions among 20 influencers held on December 10, 2014

5

Demographics

18-24

25-35

36-45

46-55

56+

Republican

Democrat

Independent

Something else

Conservative

Moderate

Liberal

Something else

Male

Female

5%

14%

17%

30%

32%

23%

37%

30%

4%

21%

41%

24%

9%

61%

39%

Po

liti

cal

Aff

ilia

tio

nP

oli

tica

l Id

eolo

gy

Gen

der

Ag

e

*sums may not equal 100% percent as some respondents opted to not answer all demographic questions

6

Key Findings

THE LANDSCAPE• Though government travel influencers believed that U.S. government operations

were heading in the right direction, there were clearly concerns regarding curbing wasteful spending and improving efficiency

• influencers had seen restrictions increase in recent years and discussions around government travel policies are common

INITIAL TRAVEL POLICY POSITIONS• Influencers express mixed opinions of current government travel, event and

conference policies; those favorable seek to prevent waste while those with unfavorable impressions complain of too much restriction

• Despite mixed impressions, influencers support easing government travel restrictions generally; while they might support transparent, objective policies (e.g., mandating senior-level approval for those over $100,000 or subjecting those same conferences to public reporting), they oppose more subjective across the board measures (e.g. 30% budget reductions)

7

Key Findings (continued)

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES STRONGLY AGREE THAT IN PERSON MEETINGS ARE VALUABLE• 98% believe meetings are important to advancing their agency’s mission.• 92% say engaging with colleagues, peers, partners and vendors face to face

improves their ability to do their jobs effectively• 84% agree that future innovation and competitiveness is tied to engaging,

collaborating and learning with those inside and outside of government• 2 in 3 employees believe that collaborating and innovating is best accomplished

in person. 7 in 10 say it offers the best way to build public-private partnerships• 89% said that in-person trainings, conferences and continuing education events

provide a better learning environment• 89% have attended an in-person event that would not have resulted in the same

level of success if conducted remotely.

8

Key Findings (continued)

MESSAGING IN SUPPORT OF TRAVEL• Overall, messaging in support of travel is compelling and moves more

government travel influencers to support easing travel restrictions• Messaging on government effectiveness, a high priority that influencers say the

government needs to address, is most persuasive• Using the language of the meetings industry may be problematic as it is

unfamiliar and not intuitive; descriptions of the conference, travel or events industry may provide greater clarity for influencers

• Influencers view government organizations as the most credible voices on this issue; external organizations, such as U.S. Travel, PCMA and ASAE, are not well known, and building awareness may improve perceptions of authority

9

Mo

re im

po

rtan

tL

ess

impo

rta

nt

Ensuring access to affordable, quality healthcare

Reducing crime

Creating more jobs

Protecting America's global competitiveness

Improving education

Improving the efficiency of government

Curbing wasteful or abusive government spending

Improving the economy

41%

43%

44%

39%

56%

51%

50%

54%

26%

26%

25%

36%

17%

32%

34%

31%

20%

21%

21%

19%

19%

15%

12%

11%

14%

10%

10%

5%

7%

1%

4%

4%

0.01

0.01

Very important (10-9) Somewhat important (8-7) Neutral (6-5) Unimportant (4-0) DK/RF

Curbing wasteful spending and improving government efficiency are top concerns

• Interestingly, curbing wasteful or abusive government spending and improving the efficiency of the government are on par with improving the economy, traditionally the biggest concern by far

Q2: In your opinion, how important is it that the U.S. government address the following issues: Please rate your answer on a scale of 0-10 where 0 is not at all important and 10 is extremely important.

How important is it that the U.S. government address the following issues: Mean

8.3

8.3

8.3

8.0

7.8

7.6

7.5

7.4

*sums may not equal 100% due to rounding

10

There is general awareness of discussions on government travel, large scale meetings

• Respondents mostly recall discussions around restrictions, including budget cuts, arduous approval processes and limiting staff attendance

Q3: How much, if anything, have you seen, read or heard about conversations around government travel and large scale meetings? Q4: Please list anything that you have heard regarding attitudes, expectations or policies for travel and in-person meetings, conferences, and special events. [CODED OPEN ENDS; MULTIPLE RESPONSE]

How much, if anything, have you seen, read or heard about conversations around government travel and

large scale meetings?

68% are Aware

n=112

Restrictions for travel 20%

Reduced budget 17%

Inappropriate spending 17%

Minimize travel 15%

Video conferencing instead of traveling 13%

Hard to get approval for travel 11%

Limit staff attending 10%

Overreaction to travel complaints 10%

Travel is important 10%

Scandal 9%

Only necessary travel 6%

Few people doing bad things and everyone is punished 6%

Unnecessary meetings 5%

Other 1%

Haven’t heard anything 11%

Refused 2%

What have you heard?

11

Influencers agreed they have seen more restrictions on government travel policies in recent years

• A strong majority, seven in 10, report more restrictive policies in recent years• One in three say they have seen significantly more restriction• Only four percent say they have seen less restriction

Q7: In recent years, how have you seen restrictions on government travel policies change?

In recent years, how have you seen restrictions on government travel policies change?

32%

39%

20%

4%5%

71% More

Restriction

Significantly more

No change

Somewhat less

Somewhat more

Don’t know

12

Respondents express mixed impressions of current travel and conference policies

• A plurality say they have a neutral impression of government’s current policies • An almost equal amount say they have favorable or unfavorable impressions;

intensity (i.e. very favorable/unfavorable) is also very similar• Those in the administration are split, while a majority in Congress are neutral

(65%) and a plurality in the private sector are unfavorable (44%)

Favorable Neutral Unfavorable

11% 9%

0.2 0.21

31%

39%

30%

Q5: Generally speaking, what are your impressions of the government’s current travel, event and conference policies?

Ver

y I

Som

ewha

t I

TO

TAL

What are your impressions of the government’s current travel, event and conference policies?

13

Despite mixed impressions, influencers support easing government travel restrictions

• Interestingly, Republicans (66%) and conservatives (70%) are the biggest supporters, potentially due to anti-regulation ideologies

Support Neither Oppose

19%

8%

0.31

0.19

50%

23%27%

Q9: Given all you know about current government travel policies, would you say you support or oppose easing current government travel policy restrictions?

Sig

nifi

can

tly |

Som

ew

hat

I T

OTA

L

Do you support or oppose easing current government travel policy restrictions?

14

Q8: To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following policies proposed or enacted by The Office of Management and Budget (OMB)?

To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following policies proposed or enacted by The Office of Management and Budget (OMB)?

Difference Score (Agree – Disagree)

Mandating senior-level approval for federal conferences over $100,000 59%

Subjecting federal conferences over $100,000 to public reporting 58%

Encouraging video or telephone conference meetings instead of in-person large scale meetings

53%

Capping expenditures for a single federal event or conference at $500,000 21%

Making certain locations off-limits for federal agency meetings, events or conferences, especially those that may be perceived as resort or leisure destinations

12%

Limiting the number of employees from an agency who may attend a large scale meeting or conference

7%

Reducing federal agency travel spending across the board by 30 percent -21%

Removing or restricting food and beverages at large scale meetings -31%

• Policies that are specific, such as mandating senior-level approval for those over $100,000 or subjecting those same conferences to public reporting, receive support

• However, across the board cuts, restriction of food/beverages and even (to some extent) limiting the number of employees are not supported, likely due to their subjectivity

When asked about specific policies, influencers favor transparency and objectivity

15

Overall, messaging in support of travel is compelling• Respondents were exposed to 14 messages in support of meetings and travel - all but one

are seen as compelling by a majority

• The exception is the following message: The meetings industry is an economic engine creating jobs, generating revenue and supporting communities across the county. The industry contributes more to national GDP than the air transportation, motion picture, sound recording, performing arts and spectator sport industries

This is consistent with focus group findings, where participants disagreed whether this was a credible message and, even if it was, it’s not seen as the government’s responsibility to “bailout” the meetings industry

• Similar to focus groups, messaging around mission critical travel ranks as most compelling: Federal employee travel is an essential component of, for example, conducting food safety inspections, aircraft inspections, accident safety inspections, law enforcement inspections, military training and emergency preparedness and response.

A strong majority (84%) rate it as compelling; a majority rate it as very compelling (57%):

However, its not a driver of support for easing restrictions. This may be due to assumptions that, as one focus group participant put it, “mission critical travel is exempt from current policies”

Q10: I will read some statements from those who support travel for meetings, events and conferences, and limiting restrictions. For each, please tell me if you find the statement very, somewhat, not very, or not at all compelling in making the case for easing restrictions on government travel policy. If you have no opinion, please say so.

16

Messaging on government effectiveness moves influencers

• Regression analysis reveals two messages are primarily driving positive opinion movement:

Congress and federal workers rely on meetings and travel as an indispensable tool to do their jobs more effectively. These meetings enable successful information sharing, employee training and development, taxpayer services, and collaboration with other agencies and private-sector partners in a way that cannot be accomplished by other means.

Across the board cuts to travel budgets and the need to obtain senior-level approval for conference attendance mean fewer federal employees are well-trained, educated and engaged in important issues, or generally advancing the agency’s mission. The focus on travel costs reduction ultimately results in a less effective government.

Q10: I will read some statements from those who support travel for meetings, events and conferences, and limiting restrictions. For each, please tell me if you find the statement very, somewhat, not very, or not at all compelling in making the case for easing restrictions on government travel policy. If you have no opinion, please say so.

17

57%

44%

37%

36%

34%

26%

24%

26%

35%

42%

40%

41%

47%

48%

84%

79%

79%

76%

75%

73%

72%

Individual message ratings

Q10: I will read some statements from those who support travel for meetings, events and conferences, and limiting restrictions. For each, please tell me if you find the statement very, somewhat, not very, or not at all compelling in making the case for easing restrictions on government travel policy. If you have no opinion, please say so.

How compelling do you find each of the statements:

Federal employee travel is an essential component of, for example, conducting food safety inspections, aircraft inspections, accident safety inspections, law enforcement inspections, military

training and emergency preparedness and response.

Fiscal responsibility and the reduction of unnecessary spending is important; however, blanket restrictions that prohibit travel in response to isolated incidents are short sighted. Cutting these vital

functions will only reduce federal efficiency and productivity and cost taxpayers more in the long run.

Meetings play a critical role in connecting people and driving positive business results. Federal agencies depend on in-person meetings to build and nurture strong relationships, initiate public-

private partnerships, close deals and develop high-performing talent.

Conferences are the focal point for the productive exchange of ideas across industry, academia and government. Restricting the participation of federal personnel, especially those in science and

engineering, is debilitating and limits the productivity of important federal agencies. Over time, such restricting will diminish America’s innovation capacity and competitiveness.

Congress and federal workers rely on meetings and travel as an indispensable tool to do their jobs more effectively. These meetings enable successful information sharing, employee training and

development, taxpayer services, and collaboration with other agencies and private-sector partners in a way that cannot be accomplished by other means.

Meetings and events more effectively connect participants to the agenda and one another, and drive collaboration by building meaningful business relationships.

Government meetings and travel increase efficiency and productivity. The dialogue that takes place between the government and the private sector is essential to the development of informed

policymaking that facilitates economic growth and job creation.

*sums may not equal total due to rounding

Very | Somewhat | TOTAL COMPELLING*

18

23%

38%

30%

24%

31%

21%

15%

47%

31%

36%

43%

32%

33%

29%

70%

69%

67%

67%

62%

54%

44%

Individual message ratings (continued)

Q10: I will read some statements from those who support travel for meetings, events and conferences, and limiting restrictions. For each, please tell me if you find the statement very, somewhat, not very, or not at all compelling in making the case for easing restrictions on government travel policy. If you have no opinion, please say so.

How compelling do you find each of the statements:

Meetings create a shared sense of mission and purpose, foster understanding across organizational lines and create camaraderie that positions federal agencies for success.

Restricting travel for mission-critical work ends up costing the taxpayer more. For instance, the cancellation of the 2013 military health system conference, at which several thousand military medical personnel were to be trained, cost the treasury an estimated $800,000 as the needed

training for the personnel had to occur in a more fractured and expensive manner.

It is important to distinguish legitimate meetings and travel activities from isolated instances of abuse in the past. Strong federal regulation and enhanced oversight have made these isolated

incidents of poor judgment by a handful of government employees a thing of the past.

Across the board cuts to travel budgets and the need to obtain senior-level approval for conference attendance mean fewer federal employees are well-trained, educated and engaged in important

issues, or generally, advancing the agency's mission. The focus on travel costs reduction ultimately results in a less effective government.

Avoiding leisure or resort locations can actually drive up costs and create more work for planners, since acceptable locations may be more expensive and lack infrastructure compared to locations

like Las Vegas or Orlando which routinely host large scale meetings and conferences.

More video and teleconferencing can lead to major headaches when technology fails, threatening the viability of training sessions and meetings. In addition, these virtual long-distance meetings do not allow for off-agenda informal conversations, collaboration and brainstorming which often spark

new ideas and move the overall agenda and agency mission forward.

The meeting industry is an economic engine creating jobs, generating revenue and supporting communities across the country. The industry contributes more to national GDP than the air

transportation, motion picture, sound recordings, performing arts and spectator sport industries.

Very | Somewhat | TOTAL COMPELLING*

*sums may not equal total due to rounding

19

After reviewing messaging, support increases for easing government travel policies

• Support increases by 10 percentage points while opposition decreases by nine percentage points, for a total 19 percentage points of positive movement

• Self-described “moderates” appear to be most persuadable

Support Neutral Oppose

26%

22%

7%

0.34

0.12

0.6

0.18

Q9: Given all that you know about current government travel policies, would you say you support or oppose easing current government travel policy restrictions?Q11: Now that you’ve learned more, would you say you support or oppose easing current government travel policy restrictions?

Str

on

gly

| S

om

ew

ha

t I

TO

TAL

Informed

Str

on

gly

| S

om

ew

ha

t I

TO

TAL

Initial

Support Neither Oppose

19%

23%

8%

0.31

0.19

0.5

0.27

Do you support or oppose easing current government travel policy restrictions?

*sums may not equal total due to rounding

20

Next Steps – Advocacy Platform

• Industry point of view and policy principles.• Advocacy toolkit with updated messaging and new

content.• Strategies and tactics that propel advocacy messaging.• Creative content that illustrates advocacy messaging and

data.• Distribution strategy to reach decision-makers and policy-

influencers.