Project Attrition - Webinars, Webcasts, LMS, eLearning ...eoplugin.commpartners.com/HSMAI/APEX_Project_Attrition_PhaseII.… · Project Attrition can help improve performance and

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 Page Executive Summary 7

Methodology 15

Sample 15

Instrument 16

Data Collection 16

Data Analysis 16

Scope & Limitations 16

Findings 18

Conclusions 38



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.


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


http://www.conventionindustry.org/

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


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.”


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.


http://www.conventionindustry.com/


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.



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.


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.


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.


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.


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.”)


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.


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%


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


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.


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.


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.


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


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 %


0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

% o

f Res

pond

ents

Very 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


Likely

Very Likely

Column %


0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

% o

f Res

pond

ents

Very 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


Likely

Very Likely

Column %


Project Attrition Attendee Behavior Report

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

% o

f Res

pond

ents

Very 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


Likely

Very Likely

Column %

Page 34 of 43

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

% o

f Res

pond

ents

Very 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


Likely

Very Likely

Column %


Project Attrition Attendee Behavior Report

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

% o

f Res

pond

ents

Very 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


Likely

Very Likely

Column %

Page 36 of 43

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

% o

f Res

pond

ents

Very 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


Likely

Very Likely

Column %


0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

% o

f Res

pond

ents

Very 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


Likely

Very Likely

Column %


10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

% o

f Res

pond

ents

Very 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


Likely

Very Likely

Column %


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


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 is an initiative of the Convention Industry Council.

www.conventionindustry.org

Documents

Project Attrition - Webinars, Webcasts, LMS, eLearning ...eoplugin.commpartners.com/HSMAI/APEX_Project_Attrition_PhaseII.… · Project Attrition can help improve performance and