project attrition - webinars, webcasts, lms, elearning...
TRANSCRIPT
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
Project Attrition Attendee Behavior Report Page 3 of 43
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
Project Attrition Attendee Behavior Report Page 4 of 43
Convention Industry Council 8201 Greensboro Drive, Suite 300 McLean, VA 22102
+1 (800) 725-8982 Fax: +1 (703) 610-9005 www.conventionindustry.org
Project Attrition Attendee Behavior Report Page 5 of 43
REPORT CONTENTS
Report Section Page Executive Summary 7
Methodology 15
Sample 15
Instrument 16
Data Collection 16
Data Analysis 16
Scope & Limitations 16
Findings 18
Conclusions 38
Project Attrition Attendee Behavior Report Page 6 of 43
Project Attrition Attendee Behavior Report Page 7 of 43
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Data, tools and solutions developed through the Convention Industry Council’s 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 event’s 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,
1 The Project Attrition Final Report can be found in its entirety on the Convention Industry Council website at www.conventionindustry.org.
Project Attrition Attendee Behavior Report Page 8 of 43
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:
Project Attrition Attendee Behavior Report Page 9 of 43
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.
Project Attrition Attendee Behavior Report Page 10 of 43
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
Project Attrition Attendee Behavior Report Page 11 of 43
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 event’s process under any circumstance.
However, incentives would be needed for one-third of respondents to consider using the event’s 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 attendee’s 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
Project Attrition Attendee Behavior Report Page 12 of 43
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.
That’s 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.”
Project Attrition Attendee Behavior Report Page 13 of 43
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 Council’s web site: www.conventionindustry.org.
Project Attrition Attendee Behavior Report Page 14 of 43
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 Council’s 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.
Project Attrition Attendee Behavior Report Page 15 of 43
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 organization’s event.
Project Attrition Attendee Behavior Report Page 16 of 43
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
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.
Project Attrition Attendee Behavior Report Page 17 of 43
Instrument The survey’s 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 user’s 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.
Project Attrition Attendee Behavior Report Page 18 of 43
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 study’s 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 study’s findings and
conclusions will immediately point event planners in the direction of solutions to attrition-related issues they may
be facing.
Project Attrition Attendee Behavior Report Page 19 of 43
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
reader’s 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 we’ve 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.”)
Project Attrition Attendee Behavior Report Page 20 of 43
Profile 1 Profile 2 Profile 3 Profile 4 Profile 5 Profile 6 Profile 7 Profile 8 EVENT CHARACTERISTICS Meeting Type Convention Convention Tradeshow Convention Tradeshow Convention Convention ConventionHost Type Association Association Corporation Association Association Association Association AssociationIndustry Government Medical Trade Electronics Trade Medical High Tech InformationRoom Block Type Multi-Hotel Single Hotel Single Hotel Single Hotel City Wide City Wide Multi-Hotel Multi-Hotel Host City Portland, OR San Francisco Atlanta Atlanta Las Vegas Chicago Baltimore New YorkLength of Event 4 Days 3 Days 3 Days 6 Days 4 Days 6 Days 6 Days 6 Days Housing Management None None Hotel In House Staff Housing Cmpny Housing Cmpny Housing Cmpny Housing Cmpny Meeting Registrants 1,000-1,499 250-499 1,500-2,499 500-999 50,000+ 50,000+ 5,000-7,499 5,000-7,499Meeting Exhibitors <100 <100 500-999 100-249 NA 25,000-34,999 1,000-1,499 NARoom Nights in Block 500-999 250-499 1000-1,499 2,500-3,499 50,000+ 50,000+ 7,500-9,999 10,000-14,999 Room Night Pick Up 500-999 250-499 750-999 2,500-3,499 35,000-49,999 50,000+ 7,500-9999 5,000 – 7,499 Room Nights Last Year 500-999 500-749 0 3,500-4,999 50,000+ 50,000+ 1,000–1,499 10,000-14,999 Pick Up Last Year 500-999 250-749 0 2,500-3,499 35,000-49,999 50,000+ 10,000-14,999 8,850 Register Online Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Register Offline Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Reg/Housing Combined No No No Yes Yes Yes No NoRESERVATION SOURCES Meeting/Event 19.4% 48.3% 18.6% 67.8% 27.2% 71.7% 28.3% 39.8%Online Travel Sites3 7.7% 8.7% 20.0% 1.7% 17.3% 5.7% 11.6% 13.3%Travel Agent .0% 3.7% 18.6% 7.5% 13.6% 6.8% 25.5% 9.2%Company Intranet 1.3% .8% .0% 5.2% 1.8% 1.1% 7.8% 4.5%Direct to Hotel (Tel, Web) 65.2% 32.6% 35.7% 16.7% 30.4% 10.3% 20.3% 26.0%Other 3.9% 5.0% 5.7% 1.1% 8.7% 4.1% 5.5% 6.5%NA 2.6% .8% 1.4% .0% .9% .3% 1.0% .7%$ saved around/outside4 $55 $69 $41 $52 $62 $59 $48 $70SEGMENTATION ISSUES Size of Company Had Impact on Hotel Resource Used
No No No No Yes No No No
Having a Company Policy on Hotel Reservations in No No No No Yes Yes Yes No
3 Includes Expedia, Orbitz, Trvelocity, Hotels.com, Hotwire, Priceline 4 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 Profile 2 Profile 3 Profile 4 Profile 5 Profile 6 Profile 7 Profile 8 Effect had an Impact on Hotel Resources Used Previous Experience Registering for This Meeting had an Impact on Hotel Resources Used
No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Percentage of Registrants who had registered for meeting less than 2 times in past 5 years
60% 27% 83% 27% 52% 36% 41% 35%
There was a difference in how Exhibitors and Attendees tended to use Hotel Sources
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.
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
% o
f Res
pond
ents
0 1 2 3 4 5
# of Times Registered for Event in Past Five Years
Meeting/EventOnline TravelTravel AgentCompany IntranetDirect to HotelOtherNA
Hotel Resource
Use of Hotel Reservation Resource byNumber of Times Registered for Event inPast Five Years
29.2% 36.3% 38.1% 43.8% 55.7% 57.7%
14.3% 15.5% 14.6% 13.2% 10.4% 7.8%
18.7% 12.0% 10.4% 9.1% 7.7% 6.9%
2.9% 2.4% 1.7% 2.2% 1.0% 1.6%
23.7% 26.7% 28.3% 24.0% 20.5% 20.8%
9.5% 6.8% 6.4% 7.0% 4.2% 4.7%
1.6% .4% .5% .7% .3% .4%
Meeting/Event
Online Travel
Travel Agent
Company Intranet
Direct to Hotel
Other
NA
HotelResourceUsed
0 1 2 3 4 5Number of Times Registered for This Event in Past 5 years
Reinforcing the pattern that “newer” attendees tend to use the event’s housing process less than do more
experienced attendees is the pattern revealing that those who have been members of the event’s 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.
Project Attrition Attendee Behavior Report Page 23 of 43
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
% o
f Res
pond
ents
1-23-5
6-1011-20
more than 20NA
Years As Member of Host Organization
Meeting/EventOnline TravelTravel AgentCompany IntranetDirect to HotelOtherNA
Hotel Resource
Use of Hotel Reservation Resource byYears as Member of Event Host Organization
30.4% 41.3% 42.7% 50.7% 56.7% 29.6%
16.6% 12.7% 12.0% 9.3% 9.0% 16.7%
14.5% 10.9% 9.6% 9.5% 6.2% 10.2%
2.2% 2.7% 2.9% 1.6% 1.8% 4.6%
27.7% 24.0% 25.5% 22.2% 21.5% 26.9%
7.3% 7.6% 6.5% 6.3% 4.5% 9.3%
1.3% .7% .7% .4% .2% 2.8%
Meeting/Event
Online Travel
Travel Agent
Company Intranet
Direct to Hotel
Other
NA
HotelResourceUsed
1-2 3-5 6-10 11-20 20+ NAYears as Member of Host Organization
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.
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
% o
f Res
pond
ents
YesNo
Reserve Additional Room Nights?
% of Respondents who Reserved Extra Room NightsBefore and/or After the Event
Column
% Reserve
Additional Room Nights
Yes 71.3%
No 28.7%
Project Attrition Attendee Behavior Report Page 24 of 43
0.0%
25.0%
50.0%
75.0%
% o
f Res
pond
ents
Profile 1 Profile 2 Profile 3 Profile 4 Profile 5 Profile 6 Profile 7 Profile 8
Profile
YesNo
Bring Spouse/Family
% of Respondents Who Brought Spouse/Family toEvent by Profile
81.9% 50.0% 87.1% 60.9% 53.5% 71.6% 92.3% 72.5%
18.1% 50.0% 12.9% 39.1% 46.5% 28.4% 7.7% 27.5%
Yes
No
Profile 1 Profile 2 Profile 3 Profile 4 Profile 5 Profile 6 Profile 7 Profile 8
0.0%
25.0%
50.0%
75.0%
% o
f Res
pond
ents
0 1 2 3 4 5
# of Years Registered - Last Five Years
Yes
No
Reserve Additional Hotel Rooms?
% of Respondents who Reserved Additional HotelRooms Before And/or After Event by # of YearsRegistered in Past Five Years
73.8% 71.5% 69.4% 70.7% 72.2% 70.3%
26.2% 28.5% 30.6% 29.3% 27.8% 29.7%
Yes
No
0 1 2 3 4 5
Project Attrition Attendee Behavior Report Page 25 of 43
How many additional nights added?
1.41 2.16 2.25 1.18 2.03 1.76 1.77 2.10How Many?Mean
Profile 1Mean
Profile 2Mean
Profile 3Mean
Profile 4Mean
Profile 5Mean
Profile 6Mean
Profile 7Mean
Profile 8Profile
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.
Project Attrition Attendee Behavior Report Page 26 of 43
26.3% 26.1% 51.9% 36.7% 50.2% 37.9% 43.2% 66.6%
1.7% 8.4% .0% .0% 2.0% 5.0% 2.5% 3.4%
6.8% 10.1% .0% 2.0% 8.5% 11.1% 12.3% .8%
23.7% 27.7% 3.8% 2.0% 10.2% 10.5% 17.4% 2.0%
.8% 1.7% 1.9% .0% 2.6% 2.3% 1.7% .8%
.8% 4.2% .0% 2.0% 3.2% 2.8% 1.5% 3.7%
2.5% 6.7% 1.9% 4.1% 11.9% 6.8% 6.1% 11.9%
22.0% 22.7% 26.9% 30.6% 25.4% 24.2% 24.1% 22.1%
3.4% 4.2% 7.7% 4.1% 5.1% 3.3% 4.9% 2.3%
.0% 1.7% 13.5% 2.0% 13.4% 6.0% 4.4% 2.8%
8.5% 14.3% 5.8% 8.2% 26.7% 24.6% 13.5% 25.5%
.8% 3.4% 1.9% .0% 5.0% 4.4% .5% 4.0%
2.5% 3.4% 1.9% 2.0% 4.8% 5.8% 11.3% 1.4%
11.9% 12.6% 9.6% .0% 2.5% 2.0% 5.7% 2.3%
29.7% 26.1% 15.4% 32.7% 15.0% 24.5% 18.7% 34.0%
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 WantedThe Event's Registration Process Did Not Offer the Hotel I Wanted
I Wanted More Control Over the Hotel Registration Process and Ability to Track/ConfirmI 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 DirectIt 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 theMeeting/EventOther Reason
ReasonsforAvoidingBlock
Column %Profile 1
Column %Profile 2
Column %Profile 3
Column %Profile 4
Column %Profile 5
Column %Profile 6
Column %Profile 7
Column %Profile 8
Profile
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.
54.81 68.42 41.30 51.67 62.48 58.59 48.01 69.72Amount of Money SavedMean
Profile 1Mean
Profile 2Mean
Profile 3Mean
Profile 4Mean
Profile 5Mean
Profile 6Mean
Profile 7Mean
Profile 8Profile
26.8% 45.3% 57.8% 50.9% 38.8%
3.7% 2.8% 2.1% 3.6% 2.6%
13.3% 7.5% 8.7% 3.6% 7.8%
14.5% 10.9% 10.4% 4.2% 9.7%
1.3% 2.5% 2.2% 3.0% 3.2%
1.7% 3.1% 2.5% 6.0% 5.3%
4.2% 10.7% 9.9% 16.2% 15.7%
11.5% 27.3% 25.1% 43.1% 24.0%
2.7% 5.3% 4.7% 6.6% 3.2%
5.3% 11.1% 12.1% 10.2% 7.8%
15.1% 27.6% 22.4% 35.9% 28.3%
1.0% 5.3% 4.3% 4.2% 4.3%
4.5% 4.6% 5.7% 3.6% 4.9%
5.2% 2.3% 2.8% 1.8% 5.1%
25.0% 14.8% 15.2% 23.4% 34.9%
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
ReasonsforAvoidingBlock
Column %
Use the event'sprocess under
anycircumstances
Column %
Considerusing theevent'sprocess
withincentives
Column %
Considerusing theevent'sprocess
only if lessexpensive
Column %
Not considerthe event's
process underany
circumstancesColumn %
Responsenot listed
above
Response to Attrition Explanation -- Likely Future Action
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.
0.0%
25.0%
50.0%
75.0%
% o
f Res
pond
ents
YesNo
Aware?
% of Respondents who were aware thatmeeting sponsor could incurr performance fees
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.
Project Attrition Attendee Behavior Report Page 28 of 43
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
% o
f Res
pond
ents
Under Any Circumstances
Only With IncentivesOnly if Less Expensive
Not Use at AllResponse not listed
Likely Response
Likelihood of Using Event Housing RegistrationProcess After Learning of Meeting Host's PotentialPerformance Fee Problems
21.8%
32.3%
36.1%
1.9%
7.9%
Under Any Circumstances
Only With Incentives
Only if Less Expensive
Not Use at All
Response not listed
Column %
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.
Project Attrition Attendee Behavior Report Page 29 of 43
ng
erag
e R
a
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
Av
ti
Discount on Meeting/Event RegistrationComplimentary Breakfast at Your HotelExclusive Access to Free Shuttle Transportation to Convetion CenterComplimentary Access to High Speed Internet In Hotel RoomComplimentary Access to Health Club at HotelExclusive Invitations to Special Parties/EventsExclusive Access to Special Sessions with ColleaguesUnlimited Access to Cyber Cafe on Show FloorExclusive Access to Program Changes and Additional Speaker Information
Key to Incentive Option
Relative Value Placed onPotential Incentives (Mean Score basedon 1-5 Scale, "1" indicating "Very Unlikely" and"5" Indicating "Very Likely")
4.42 4.34 4.19 4.19 4.15 4.32 4.08 4.20
3.95 3.80 3.70 3.36 3.89 4.16 3.61 3.58
3.06 3.10 3.18 3.05 3.21 3.13 3.03 2.81
3.02 3.16 3.51 3.03 3.46 3.36 3.06 3.11
2.76 3.12 3.07 2.64 2.90 3.18 2.98 2.98
2.70 2.84 3.01 2.64 2.92 2.94 2.74 2.62
3.12 4.13 3.25 3.34 3.36 3.58 3.08 3.14
3.40 3.90 3.45 3.76 3.52 3.89 3.89 3.41
4.10 4.08 3.96 3.62 3.89 4.20 3.88 3.86
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
MeanProfile 1
MeanProfile 2
MeanProfile 3
MeanProfile 4
MeanProfile 5
MeanProfile 6
MeanProfile 7
MeanProfile 8
Project Attrition Attendee Behavior Report Page 30 of 43
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
% o
f Res
pond
ents
Very Unlikely
UnlikelyNeither Likely nor Unlikely
LikelyVery Likely
Likelihood of Using
Likelihood of Using Event Process For HousingRegistration if Discount on Event RegistrationWere Offered
4.1%
3.4%
8.2%
36.8%
47.4%
Very Unlikely
Unlikely
Neither Likely nor Unlikely
Likely
Very Likely
Column %
Project Attrition Attendee Behavior Report Page 31 of 43
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
% o
f Res
pond
ents
Very Unlikely
UnlikelyNeither Likely nor Unlikely
LikelyVery Likely
Likelihood of Using
Likelihood of Using Event Process For HousingRegistration if Exclusive Access to ConventionCenter Shuttle Were Offered
5.6%
7.1%
14.9%
35.6%
36.8%
Very Unlikely
Unlikely
Neither Likely nor Unlikely
Likely
Very Likely
Column %
Project Attrition Attendee Behavior Report Page 32 of 43
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
% o
f Res
pond
ents
Very Unlikely
UnlikelyNeither Likely nor Unlikely
LikelyVery Likely
Likelihood of Using
Likelihood of Using Event Process For HousingRegistration if Exclusive Access to Special Sessionswith Colleagues Were Offered
9.3%
18.3%
33.2%
27.2%
12.0%
Very Unlikely
Unlikely
Neither Likely nor Unlikely
Likely
Very Likely
Column %
Project Attrition Attendee Behavior Report Page 33 of 43
Project Attrition Attendee Behavior Report
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
% o
f Res
pond
ents
Very Unlikely
UnlikelyNeither Likely nor Unlikely
LikelyVery Likely
Likelihood of Using
Likelihood of Using Event Process For HousingRegistration if Exclusive Invitations to Parties/EventsWere Offered
8.0%
14.9%
27.1%
32.1%
17.9%
Very Unlikely
Unlikely
Neither Likely nor Unlikely
Likely
Very Likely
Column %
Page 34 of 43
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
% o
f Res
pond
ents
Very Unlikely
UnlikelyNeither Likely nor Unlikely
LikelyVery Likely
Likelihood of Using
Likelihood of Using Event Process For HousingRegistration if Unlimited Access to a Cyber Cafeon Show/Meeting Floor were Offered
12.5%
20.7%
33.7%
22.7%
10.5%
Very Unlikely
Unlikely
Neither Likely nor Unlikely
Likely
Very Likely
Column %
Project Attrition Attendee Behavior Report Page 35 of 43
Project Attrition Attendee Behavior Report
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
% o
f Res
pond
ents
Very Unlikely
UnlikelyNeither Likely nor Unlikely
LikelyVery Likely
Likelihood of Using
Likelihood of Using Event Process For HousingRegistration if Exclusive Access to ProgramChanges and Additional Speaker Information
11.7%
22.2%
38.7%
20.8%
6.6%
Very Unlikely
Unlikely
Neither Likely nor Unlikely
Likely
Very Likely
Column %
Page 36 of 43
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
% o
f Res
pond
ents
Very Unlikely
UnlikelyNeither Likely nor Unlikely
LikelyVery Likely
Likelihood of Using
Likelihood of Using Event Process For HousingRegistration if Complimentary Access to Hotel HealthClub Were Offered
9.3%
14.7%
25.2%
28.9%
21.9%
Very Unlikely
Unlikely
Neither Likely nor Unlikely
Likely
Very Likely
Column %
Project Attrition Attendee Behavior Report Page 37 of 43
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
% o
f Res
pond
ents
Very Unlikely
UnlikelyNeither Likely nor Unlikely
LikelyVery Likely
Likelihodd of Using
Likelihood of Using Event Process For HousingRegistration if Complimentary Access to High SpeedInternet at Hotel Were Offered
7.2%
11.4%
21.1%
31.1%
29.2%
Very Unlikely
Unlikely
Neither Likely nor Unlikely
Likely
Very Likely
Column %
Project Attrition Attendee Behavior Report Page 38 of 43
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
% o
f Res
pond
ents
Very Unlikely
UnlikelyNeither Likely nor Unlikely
LikelyVery Likely
Likelihood of Using
Likelihood of Using Event Process For HousingRegistration if Complimentary Breakfast at HotelWere Offered
4.3%
5.2%
15.8%
39.0%
35.7%
Very Unlikely
Unlikely
Neither Likely nor Unlikely
Likely
Very Likely
Column %
Project Attrition Attendee Behavior Report Page 39 of 43
CONCLUSIONS Based on the current study’s 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 event’s 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
Project Attrition Attendee Behavior Report Page 40 of 43
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
attendee’s decision making process.
Project Attrition Attendee Behavior Report Page 41 of 43
Project Attrition Attendee Behavior Report Page 42 of 43
Project Attrition Attendee Behavior Report Page 43 of 43
Project Attrition is an initiative of the Convention Industry Council.
www.conventionindustry.org