I am a supporter of the proposed Music City Center. I am also hugely supportive of Gaylord, and as a citizen I remain grateful for their continued contributions to our city. This discussion is not about one against the other. I have no doubt that both properties can not only coexist, but both can thrive. I want to share a few thoughts:
Gaylord chose to build properties in Orlando, DFW, and DC within a stone’s throw of existing convention centers, where each facility were substantially larger than the proposed MCC. Why is it, then, that there is so much worry about competition only in Nashville?
I am frustrated when I hear opponents repeat talking points that are supported by one-sided or incomplete data in a clear case of rhetoric versus facts. A case in point is the constant quoting of the Tradeshow Week.
A report by the International Association for Exhibition Management explains that -
• Conclusions drawn based upon this data are notoriously imprecise. Tradeshow Week data is self-reported by event organizers, is not independently audited, and reflects the results of only 200 of the 11,094 events that took place in the U.S. in the year the survey was taken.
• Forecasts which are based upon the reported results of the Tradeshow Week 200 do not reflect the experiences of thousands of other and much smaller events. The dynamics of the TSW 200 events are atypical when compared to the experiences of the 10,894 exhibitions that are not among the nation’s 200 largest.
• Apart from the inaccurate data presented about exhibitions, no data purporting to represent activity of association, government and corporate-sponsored meetings and events is cited even though both represent very significant sources of event attendance
Speaking of meetings, with respect to Mark Twain, reports of the death of the meetings industry are greatly exaggerated. Baloney. The only voices trumpeting the end of the meetings industry as we know it are those that know little about it. I’ve been around long enough to have experienced a number of these “deaths”, most recently, the “dot com” bubble bursting, 9/11, and of course the recent economic downturn. The industry bounced back in each previous instance and will do so again.
Here’s a question for our esteemed Metro Council – just how much business do you think would get done if you could only meet via conference call or webinar? Human connections are a vital need. Face-to-face interaction is the foundation of every important historic decision ever made. The meetings industry will come back. We are already seeing signs of modest yet real recovery.
Even if you accept the notion (which I don't) that we have a center that is adequate, I would argue that adequate is not good enough. We are an exceptional city that deserves better than to remain at a competitive disadvantage when we have had a decade of studies that clearly demonstrate the need to move forward.
Finally, let me remind you that I am a taxpayer that, like most, doesn’t want an increase in my taxes. I am convinced that this project will not – just as the existing center has not – be a burden on taxpayers. If we don’t move forward, who is going to explain why we didn’t make a courageous decision when we had the chance to these taxpayers - the thousands of workers that depend on business travel; retirees who work events and manage transportation, production crews, entertainers, caterers, labor staff, staging and A/V companies, bus and limo companies, destination management and décor companies, florists, parking companies, bartenders, bell hops, housekeeping staff, restaurant servers, banquet staff and more?
Opponents, what you are going to do to support our industry, the second largest business segment in the city? Please explain: if we don’t build MCC, what is your plan B?
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Everything I know About Business Was Learned While Playing in a Rock and Roll Band.
“It’s OK, I’m with the band…”
I spent the seventies touring throughout the eastern U.S. in a rock & roll band. I was fortunate to have the full support of my parents, but my Aunt Emmie saw it as a frivolous fling of wasted youth. Aunt Emmie notwithstanding, I am constantly reminded of how relevant many of the lessons learned while sowing these wild oats remain meaningful some 3 decades later. Here are a few in no particular order:
Quality over quantity.
It’s not the number of notes you play; it’s where you place the notes. Technical virtuosity alone is useless without an appreciation of the nuance needed to express the essence of the piece.
Keep adding to your repertoire.
When I was making a living playing music, we performed night after night in clubs six, sometimes seven nights a week. With that schedule, even the best tunes in the repertoire get stale. We discovered that if we took the time to learn a few new songs here and there, the entire playlist remained fresh.
Never give up.
When attempting to learn a new technique or riff (a short repeated melodic phrase), you sometimes hit a wall. Even with the best instruction or ear for music, you’ll try & try and just can’t seem to get it. Keep going – when you do finally break through to grasp this musical segment, it will open up a whole new plateau of understanding that will prepare you to learn the next new piece. Perseverance will make you a better player.
Keep focus on the Big Picture.
It takes more than great lyrics & melody; the true meaning of the piece will be lost if attention is not paid to rhythm, tempo, volume, and arrangement, as well as the interaction between the players.
Learn to improvise.
Whether it is Jazz, Rock & Roll, R&B, or Hip Hop, the most respected musicians are those who can make up music on the spur of the moment according to instinct; in other words, the musician does not follow notes on a printed page, but rather relies on his or her own imagination to create music that bears a spiritual relation to the original source.
Listen intently.
A great monitor system is crucial. With all the volume in an R&R band, you still have to hear yourself to make sure you are on key and in tempo. It is equally important that you clearly hear the other players in the group to make sure the band is balanced.
Know your audience.
For a successful band or musician, the most valuable skill of them all may be the ability to “read” an audience. A clear understanding where they want to go will help you take them there. And you should always be prepared to take requests.
Know how to handle a solo.
When you are ready, there will come a time for you to be featured. Learn how to perform in the spotlight – gracefully. Just as important is the ability to skillfully back up another player when it is their time to shine.
Assemble a great team.
No matter what backgrounds, skills & temperament individuals bring to the band, if each player rehearses faithfully and commits to the skillful expression of the piece, you will succeed.
Catch a groove.
There are times - even though you may have played a piece thousands of times and begun to run on automatic – that an unexplained joy happens and the material takes on a life of its own. When the mundane becomes magical, that’s called “catching a groove.”
Focus on outcomes.
Great band leaders are those that can define a musical outcome, identify the often varied resources & personnel to achieve it and then guide these pieces toward the desired result. In his book, A Whole New Mind, Daniel Pink, calls this “Symphony”. Paraphrasing, a good band leader requires “a signature ability of composers and conductors, whose jobs involve corralling a diverse group of notes, instruments, and performers and producing a unified and pleasing sound”.
Have fun.
Enjoy what you are doing. Believe me, when you don’t, your audience knows it.
I have successfully applied this hard-earned knowledge throughout my business career – and continue to do so every day. Not bad for a not yet recovered Rock & Roller.
Take that, Aunt Emmie.
I spent the seventies touring throughout the eastern U.S. in a rock & roll band. I was fortunate to have the full support of my parents, but my Aunt Emmie saw it as a frivolous fling of wasted youth. Aunt Emmie notwithstanding, I am constantly reminded of how relevant many of the lessons learned while sowing these wild oats remain meaningful some 3 decades later. Here are a few in no particular order:
Quality over quantity.
It’s not the number of notes you play; it’s where you place the notes. Technical virtuosity alone is useless without an appreciation of the nuance needed to express the essence of the piece.
Keep adding to your repertoire.
When I was making a living playing music, we performed night after night in clubs six, sometimes seven nights a week. With that schedule, even the best tunes in the repertoire get stale. We discovered that if we took the time to learn a few new songs here and there, the entire playlist remained fresh.
Never give up.
When attempting to learn a new technique or riff (a short repeated melodic phrase), you sometimes hit a wall. Even with the best instruction or ear for music, you’ll try & try and just can’t seem to get it. Keep going – when you do finally break through to grasp this musical segment, it will open up a whole new plateau of understanding that will prepare you to learn the next new piece. Perseverance will make you a better player.
Keep focus on the Big Picture.
It takes more than great lyrics & melody; the true meaning of the piece will be lost if attention is not paid to rhythm, tempo, volume, and arrangement, as well as the interaction between the players.
Learn to improvise.
Whether it is Jazz, Rock & Roll, R&B, or Hip Hop, the most respected musicians are those who can make up music on the spur of the moment according to instinct; in other words, the musician does not follow notes on a printed page, but rather relies on his or her own imagination to create music that bears a spiritual relation to the original source.
Listen intently.
A great monitor system is crucial. With all the volume in an R&R band, you still have to hear yourself to make sure you are on key and in tempo. It is equally important that you clearly hear the other players in the group to make sure the band is balanced.
Know your audience.
For a successful band or musician, the most valuable skill of them all may be the ability to “read” an audience. A clear understanding where they want to go will help you take them there. And you should always be prepared to take requests.
Know how to handle a solo.
When you are ready, there will come a time for you to be featured. Learn how to perform in the spotlight – gracefully. Just as important is the ability to skillfully back up another player when it is their time to shine.
Assemble a great team.
No matter what backgrounds, skills & temperament individuals bring to the band, if each player rehearses faithfully and commits to the skillful expression of the piece, you will succeed.
Catch a groove.
There are times - even though you may have played a piece thousands of times and begun to run on automatic – that an unexplained joy happens and the material takes on a life of its own. When the mundane becomes magical, that’s called “catching a groove.”
Focus on outcomes.
Great band leaders are those that can define a musical outcome, identify the often varied resources & personnel to achieve it and then guide these pieces toward the desired result. In his book, A Whole New Mind, Daniel Pink, calls this “Symphony”. Paraphrasing, a good band leader requires “a signature ability of composers and conductors, whose jobs involve corralling a diverse group of notes, instruments, and performers and producing a unified and pleasing sound”.
Have fun.
Enjoy what you are doing. Believe me, when you don’t, your audience knows it.
I have successfully applied this hard-earned knowledge throughout my business career – and continue to do so every day. Not bad for a not yet recovered Rock & Roller.
Take that, Aunt Emmie.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
MPI is evil (and scary) and they must be stopped!
I can prove it. MPI is offering something called virtual access pass for content from World Education Conference - and they have the nerve to ask me to pay for it. How dare they adopt a business model with which I don’t agree? They must be evil, as only I am the keeper of the correct approach do doing business. There’s no way this could be a simple difference of opinion. It must be a plot to take away my right to everything for free. And since they haven’t engaged with me at exactly a time and place of my choosing, I have decided that they do not listen at all. Sad. You would think they are in the process of moving an army of staff to Salt Lake City for their largest conference of the year or something.
And they are scary. I write this from an undisclosed location (aka my Mother’s basement) so that they won’t find me. Even so, I would not be surprised if their member repercussion squad is not outside my door at this very moment, paper bag of dog poo in hand, ready to set it afire, ring our doorbell and run! I heard once of an MPI member on a site visit on Lover’s Lane on the same day a deranged one-armed person escaped a mental institution. They heard a noise and took off. When they got out of the car, they discovered a hook hanging from the door – along with the remnants of an MPI name tag.
How could they have possibly grown to 24,000 members with such a poor value proposition if they aren’t evil? I envision that Bruce guy in a gray Nehru jacket, stroking a cat, pinky to lip, exclaiming, we will soon have one MILLION members! MU HU HU HA HAH HAH HAH! MU HU HU HA HAH HAH HAH!
And they are scary. I write this from an undisclosed location (aka my Mother’s basement) so that they won’t find me. Even so, I would not be surprised if their member repercussion squad is not outside my door at this very moment, paper bag of dog poo in hand, ready to set it afire, ring our doorbell and run! I heard once of an MPI member on a site visit on Lover’s Lane on the same day a deranged one-armed person escaped a mental institution. They heard a noise and took off. When they got out of the car, they discovered a hook hanging from the door – along with the remnants of an MPI name tag.
How could they have possibly grown to 24,000 members with such a poor value proposition if they aren’t evil? I envision that Bruce guy in a gray Nehru jacket, stroking a cat, pinky to lip, exclaiming, we will soon have one MILLION members! MU HU HU HA HAH HAH HAH! MU HU HU HA HAH HAH HAH!
Thursday, June 4, 2009
MCC and the Meetings Industry: More of the Real Story
Still fired up after the Heywood Sanders sideshow, I thought I would do a bit more research. Here’s just some of what I found thanks to Tradeshow Week and author Stephanie Corbin:
Indianapolis: Wooing Business Back
For many venues that cater to the tradeshow business, the choices are simple: grow or lose shows.
That was the case for the Indiana Convention Center & RCA Dome. During the past few years, the Indianapolis Convention & Visitors Assn. has declined the opportunity to bid on 150 events because it didn't have enough convention space or hotel rooms to accommodate them, according to Chris Gahl, the ICVA's spokesman. Because of the lack of space, the Performance Racing Industry Tradeshow, staged in Indianapolis for seven years, left for Orlando in 2005.
Healthcare shows:
Health care tradeshows and meetings have become such plums for convention and visitors bureaus to land that some cities – Cleveland, for one – are using them as part of their pitch when they go to the public to sell voters on paying for convention center construction or expansion.
But even with so many cities calling, “Here, please!” health care show managers face the same challenges their peers in other sectors do: finding the right dates, securing enough space and marketing the show – and then some. Health care shows typically require more meeting room space to go along with showfloors that grow every year, and they often need a wider range of price points when they put together their room blocks (as they seek to accommodate everybody from physicians and executives at major health care institutions to nurses and technicians). What's more, most are association shows and often require a rotation pattern in order to please their members, so it's hard to get comfortable with a single venue.
Sue Sears Hamilton, senior director of the American College of Cardiology Annual Scientific Session, says, “Unless a convention center has a major expansion (there's not enough space),” she added. “For us, it isn't just the convention center, it's the housing block. A recent show, held at Morial in New Orleans, attracted 15,018 professional attendees to a 247,000 net sq. ft. showfloor with 401 exhibiting companies. Add exhibitors and conference attendees to that list of professional attendees, and the required housing block is usually for 28,000 to 30,000 people.”
Gretchen Bliss, director of meetings and conventions with the Assn. of periOperative Registered Nurses, said she wouldn't book the AORN Annual Congress into anywhere new unless she was sure of the details. A recent show, held in March in Orlando, had a 187,200 net sq. ft. showfloor, 588 exhibiting companies and 12,955 attendees, including exhibitors.
Bliss said the additional space convention centers want to sell her often isn't as important as the attitude that comes with it. “The cities that are doing expansions are making show directors (feel wanted),” she added. “For me, that's a big driving factor on why I would consider their city over someone else.”
Look, supporters of the Music City Center are not blind or stupid. We understand getting the building completed will not be all roses and lollipops. There are considerable challenges around financing, hotel HQ, etc. that need to be answered. However, despite the ideological bias by and cherry-picked data of one man (who, by the way, has nothing at stake in the success or failure of projects in our city), there is ample evidence to counter his claims that the sky is falling in the meetings industry, or in Music City - unless of course he is still under the delusion that Music City is Branson.
Pardon the platitude - If we are bold, we may fail. If we are not bold we will fail.
Indianapolis: Wooing Business Back
For many venues that cater to the tradeshow business, the choices are simple: grow or lose shows.
That was the case for the Indiana Convention Center & RCA Dome. During the past few years, the Indianapolis Convention & Visitors Assn. has declined the opportunity to bid on 150 events because it didn't have enough convention space or hotel rooms to accommodate them, according to Chris Gahl, the ICVA's spokesman. Because of the lack of space, the Performance Racing Industry Tradeshow, staged in Indianapolis for seven years, left for Orlando in 2005.
Healthcare shows:
Health care tradeshows and meetings have become such plums for convention and visitors bureaus to land that some cities – Cleveland, for one – are using them as part of their pitch when they go to the public to sell voters on paying for convention center construction or expansion.
But even with so many cities calling, “Here, please!” health care show managers face the same challenges their peers in other sectors do: finding the right dates, securing enough space and marketing the show – and then some. Health care shows typically require more meeting room space to go along with showfloors that grow every year, and they often need a wider range of price points when they put together their room blocks (as they seek to accommodate everybody from physicians and executives at major health care institutions to nurses and technicians). What's more, most are association shows and often require a rotation pattern in order to please their members, so it's hard to get comfortable with a single venue.
Sue Sears Hamilton, senior director of the American College of Cardiology Annual Scientific Session, says, “Unless a convention center has a major expansion (there's not enough space),” she added. “For us, it isn't just the convention center, it's the housing block. A recent show, held at Morial in New Orleans, attracted 15,018 professional attendees to a 247,000 net sq. ft. showfloor with 401 exhibiting companies. Add exhibitors and conference attendees to that list of professional attendees, and the required housing block is usually for 28,000 to 30,000 people.”
Gretchen Bliss, director of meetings and conventions with the Assn. of periOperative Registered Nurses, said she wouldn't book the AORN Annual Congress into anywhere new unless she was sure of the details. A recent show, held in March in Orlando, had a 187,200 net sq. ft. showfloor, 588 exhibiting companies and 12,955 attendees, including exhibitors.
Bliss said the additional space convention centers want to sell her often isn't as important as the attitude that comes with it. “The cities that are doing expansions are making show directors (feel wanted),” she added. “For me, that's a big driving factor on why I would consider their city over someone else.”
Look, supporters of the Music City Center are not blind or stupid. We understand getting the building completed will not be all roses and lollipops. There are considerable challenges around financing, hotel HQ, etc. that need to be answered. However, despite the ideological bias by and cherry-picked data of one man (who, by the way, has nothing at stake in the success or failure of projects in our city), there is ample evidence to counter his claims that the sky is falling in the meetings industry, or in Music City - unless of course he is still under the delusion that Music City is Branson.
Pardon the platitude - If we are bold, we may fail. If we are not bold we will fail.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Lies, damn lies and statistics.
“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” – Benjamin Disraeli
I read with interest Heywood Sanders opinion piece in The Sunday Tennessean. I also attended the debate between Mr. Sanders & Butch Spyridon at Blair yesterday afternoon.
Mr. Sanders has an ideological opposition to convention center construction of any kind, which is certainly his prerogative. However, I am bothered by a number of conclusions that he states as fact that simply don’t hold up under a closer look. I was also struck that when citing data sources, if data supplied supports his point of view, the source is unimpeachable, yet when the same source supplies data that supports the opposing view, he claims the research is flawed. It seems to me that this alone should call into question many of his key points.
Let’s address some of his assertions from the article and meeting yesterday specifically:
In the Tennessean article, Sanders cites 4 examples of convention center expansions to support his theory. Below is a comparison of existing space in those centers prior to proposed or actual construction:
Center Existing sq’ pre-expansion:
Washington State Center 307,000 Sq'
San Diego 2.6 million square feet
Pennsylvania Center 624,000 sq'
Brown Center, Houston 1,150,000 sq’
Nashville 180,000 sq’
Comparisons to these cities defy logic. In every instance cited, there were existing centers with adequate space. I agree that these cities overbuilt to compete with major market venues. The difference here is that our existing center was undersized the day it was opened. Not only do we know of conferences that have passed on our city because of insufficient space and the unsuitability of Gaylord Opryland for a particular program, we have a number of city wide events that historically met here which have left our city because our facility was inadequate. It seems to me that using these particular examples in comparison to the situation in Nashville does less to demonstrate an objective reporting of fact than it does to prop up a biased point of view.
Certainly, due diligence must be performed in this economic environment. Yet, I am troubled by the fact that data sources used to support Mr. Sanders’ point of view seem to be cherry-picked, and based primarily on one survey, the Tradeshow Week 200.This source ranks the 200 largest trade shows in the U.S. and the 50 largest tradeshows in Canada based on net square feet of paid exhibit space. Even if you support the conclusions drawn by Mr. Sanders, let’s look at the latest data from the Tradeshow 200 report released April 30, 2009:
“Despite the challenging economic times, 46% of TSW 200 shows experienced growth in net square feet, 40% had an increase in exhibiting companies and 36% boosted their attendance.
Nevertheless, after several years of overall growth, the top 200 shows of 2008 did experience some declines. The smallest drop of the three indexes was in net square footage, which saw a 1.6% decrease in 2008. The number of exhibiting companies fell 2% and attendance in 2008 suffered a 3% drop.
‘Tradeshows are not immune to tough economic times, and resourceful show managers are using this as an opportunity to find new, creative ways to add value to their events,’ says Dana Myers, Tradeshow Week’s Managing Editor, Directories. ‘Those who are successful will be the record-breakers of the future.’ ”
There you have it. That is the real story regarding the Top 200 trade shows. Not so bad when you look at the real figures in relation to the current economic climate.
Strangely, data figures on association meetings, corporate meetings and events, event marketing programs, and incentive travel are conspicuously absent from Sanders’ position as articulated yesterday. His assertion that the global meetings industry never recovered following 9/11 is demonstrably untrue, and, really, do the comments he made comparing Nashville to Branson give you confidence in his understanding of competitive cites in general, and the meetings and events industry in particular beyond reading numbers on a page?
Look, I love this city and I obviously support the MCC. I also support every right to disagree. I just have a hard time accepting that after more than ten years of study, debate and due diligence that Mr. Sanders’ biased and flawed logic adds to the conversation anything more than a sideshow distraction.
I read with interest Heywood Sanders opinion piece in The Sunday Tennessean. I also attended the debate between Mr. Sanders & Butch Spyridon at Blair yesterday afternoon.
Mr. Sanders has an ideological opposition to convention center construction of any kind, which is certainly his prerogative. However, I am bothered by a number of conclusions that he states as fact that simply don’t hold up under a closer look. I was also struck that when citing data sources, if data supplied supports his point of view, the source is unimpeachable, yet when the same source supplies data that supports the opposing view, he claims the research is flawed. It seems to me that this alone should call into question many of his key points.
Let’s address some of his assertions from the article and meeting yesterday specifically:
In the Tennessean article, Sanders cites 4 examples of convention center expansions to support his theory. Below is a comparison of existing space in those centers prior to proposed or actual construction:
Center Existing sq’ pre-expansion:
Washington State Center 307,000 Sq'
San Diego 2.6 million square feet
Pennsylvania Center 624,000 sq'
Brown Center, Houston 1,150,000 sq’
Nashville 180,000 sq’
Comparisons to these cities defy logic. In every instance cited, there were existing centers with adequate space. I agree that these cities overbuilt to compete with major market venues. The difference here is that our existing center was undersized the day it was opened. Not only do we know of conferences that have passed on our city because of insufficient space and the unsuitability of Gaylord Opryland for a particular program, we have a number of city wide events that historically met here which have left our city because our facility was inadequate. It seems to me that using these particular examples in comparison to the situation in Nashville does less to demonstrate an objective reporting of fact than it does to prop up a biased point of view.
Certainly, due diligence must be performed in this economic environment. Yet, I am troubled by the fact that data sources used to support Mr. Sanders’ point of view seem to be cherry-picked, and based primarily on one survey, the Tradeshow Week 200.This source ranks the 200 largest trade shows in the U.S. and the 50 largest tradeshows in Canada based on net square feet of paid exhibit space. Even if you support the conclusions drawn by Mr. Sanders, let’s look at the latest data from the Tradeshow 200 report released April 30, 2009:
“Despite the challenging economic times, 46% of TSW 200 shows experienced growth in net square feet, 40% had an increase in exhibiting companies and 36% boosted their attendance.
Nevertheless, after several years of overall growth, the top 200 shows of 2008 did experience some declines. The smallest drop of the three indexes was in net square footage, which saw a 1.6% decrease in 2008. The number of exhibiting companies fell 2% and attendance in 2008 suffered a 3% drop.
‘Tradeshows are not immune to tough economic times, and resourceful show managers are using this as an opportunity to find new, creative ways to add value to their events,’ says Dana Myers, Tradeshow Week’s Managing Editor, Directories. ‘Those who are successful will be the record-breakers of the future.’ ”
There you have it. That is the real story regarding the Top 200 trade shows. Not so bad when you look at the real figures in relation to the current economic climate.
Strangely, data figures on association meetings, corporate meetings and events, event marketing programs, and incentive travel are conspicuously absent from Sanders’ position as articulated yesterday. His assertion that the global meetings industry never recovered following 9/11 is demonstrably untrue, and, really, do the comments he made comparing Nashville to Branson give you confidence in his understanding of competitive cites in general, and the meetings and events industry in particular beyond reading numbers on a page?
Look, I love this city and I obviously support the MCC. I also support every right to disagree. I just have a hard time accepting that after more than ten years of study, debate and due diligence that Mr. Sanders’ biased and flawed logic adds to the conversation anything more than a sideshow distraction.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Nashville Music City Center: My Take and a Revised Response to Recent Reports.
There are and should be reasoned questions regarding the process of building the Music City Center, (reasoned being the key word). One question that has been asked and answered - multiple times - is whether our city needs a reasonably-sized convention center. That answer is clearly, “Yes!”
I liked Mayor Purcell, but I disagreed with him on this project. However, his years of slow walking the idea did provide valuable time for serious debate, multiple studies and well drawn conclusions. Even our notoriously skeptical Metro Council has come to understand the importance of the project and has held vote after vote approving further progress.
Of course, the economic downturn has caused us to pause to ask whether this is the right time to build. Good question. The bad news is that money is tight. The good news is that construction cost on major projects has dropped by an estimated 20%.
In their last two issues, The Nashville Scene published two very negative articles opposing the MCC project. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but really, just because their reporters’ point of view differs from mine and thousands of others in this city, accusing us of trying to pull a fast one (for supporting the MCC) is offensive and does nothing to advance their argument. We are also taxpayers who want to pay no more than our fair share, have asked tough questions about this project for years, and have come to sincerely conclude that this project is needed and is good for our city. And, by the way, I will put my love of this city up against anyone.
What is troublesome is that the Scene argument was based largely on one 3-year old, negatively-biased report that makes some valid points, but has been challenged for accuracy in many corners – as well as statistics that were cherry-picked to support only this point of view. Even Mr. Sanders, the author of the report used to underpin the article, admits at the beginning of his paper that there are legitimate questions about the numbers he cites. He devotes an entire page to a discussion of the lack of reliable data for conventions and trade shows. The reporters’ scant knowledge of the global meetings industry and lack of understanding of the deciding factors in placing a meeting and a lack of research on competing views seem to suggest a point of view seeking supporting data, rather than a reasoned report based on facts.
Unlike the implications in the article, those of familiar with the industry know that the attractiveness of Nashville as a meeting destination is not limited to country music. While our brand is a tremendous competitive asset, if a planner were to list from one to ten the reasons for bringing a meeting to our city, country music may make number 10, if it makes the list at all. The naysayers miss the point that these are business meetings. This ain’t Hee Haw. Factors including strategic meetings management and procurement policies, destination value and attendee appeal, meetings infrastructure, airlift and more drive the overarching business case that must be made when selecting a meeting destination. Planners must demonstrate ROI for their decisions. All things being equal, a right-sized facility places us in an enviable competitive position. Our CVB has proven that with the number of bookings already on the center calendar.
In addition, facts don’t support the bizarre conclusions drawn in the first article (“The dying convention business; It’s a death rattle….the post-9/11 recovery never happened. Attendance numbers keep sliding”). Really!?! On what planet? Sure there are exceptions, but overall, following a period of uncertainty, there was broad recovery in the meetings industry following 9/11. In fact until the bottom fell out of the economy beginning last year, business was a booming seller’s market. For every example given for decreasing attendance and the demise of the industry, there are plenty that contradict that assertion. As in every other business, there’s no question that the economic environment has caused cutbacks and cancellations in the last year or so in meetings, events and incentive programs, but even now, death rattle? To paraphrase Mark Twain, “Rumors of the death of the meetings industry have been greatly exaggerated.”
In fact, according to the George P. Johnson 2009 EventView Report http://tinyurl.com/cqmfqe senior sales and marketing executives in North America believe that among all marketing channels, meetings and events are the discipline that can be leveraged now to best drive ROI, and accelerate and deepen brand relationships. This report shows that CMOs and senior marketers believe events are the most effective medium to engage customers and move them to purchasing behavior – even in this down economy.
While reasonable questions remain about timing and economy, there is broad consensus that the center should be built. I challenge assumptions drawn in these articles about whether the center is necessary. The comparisons drawn in this article between other cities is not unlike comparing apples to bicycles. Examples noted from the Sanders report illustrated cities that pursued expansions despite having competitive centers in place. That is certainly overbuilding. The difference in Nashville is that our current facility has been undersized since the day it opened. This city is not chasing Las Vegas and Orlando with this project, but seeking to level the playing field and enable us to compete fairly. We will win some and we will lose some, but one thing is for sure- if we don’t have a building, we’re not in the game at all.
Comparisons to the Sommet Center and LP Field don’t hold up, either. Unlike these examples, a dramatically different financing mechanism assures that the project is paid for by visitors. There’s no question that in the years since this project was first proposed, study after study assessing need and feasibility have been presented and debated. Even some of the projects sharpest critics have come on board when they learn the facts. Nashville has taken appropriate measures to analyze the likely impact of the convention center project and perform due diligence.
Should we be concerned about the economic climate? You bet. Notwithstanding the obvious fact that this cycle won’t last forever, the risk for our city is far greater should we do nothing than if we follow the current thoughtful approach to major investments such as the Music City Center.
I liked Mayor Purcell, but I disagreed with him on this project. However, his years of slow walking the idea did provide valuable time for serious debate, multiple studies and well drawn conclusions. Even our notoriously skeptical Metro Council has come to understand the importance of the project and has held vote after vote approving further progress.
Of course, the economic downturn has caused us to pause to ask whether this is the right time to build. Good question. The bad news is that money is tight. The good news is that construction cost on major projects has dropped by an estimated 20%.
In their last two issues, The Nashville Scene published two very negative articles opposing the MCC project. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but really, just because their reporters’ point of view differs from mine and thousands of others in this city, accusing us of trying to pull a fast one (for supporting the MCC) is offensive and does nothing to advance their argument. We are also taxpayers who want to pay no more than our fair share, have asked tough questions about this project for years, and have come to sincerely conclude that this project is needed and is good for our city. And, by the way, I will put my love of this city up against anyone.
What is troublesome is that the Scene argument was based largely on one 3-year old, negatively-biased report that makes some valid points, but has been challenged for accuracy in many corners – as well as statistics that were cherry-picked to support only this point of view. Even Mr. Sanders, the author of the report used to underpin the article, admits at the beginning of his paper that there are legitimate questions about the numbers he cites. He devotes an entire page to a discussion of the lack of reliable data for conventions and trade shows. The reporters’ scant knowledge of the global meetings industry and lack of understanding of the deciding factors in placing a meeting and a lack of research on competing views seem to suggest a point of view seeking supporting data, rather than a reasoned report based on facts.
Unlike the implications in the article, those of familiar with the industry know that the attractiveness of Nashville as a meeting destination is not limited to country music. While our brand is a tremendous competitive asset, if a planner were to list from one to ten the reasons for bringing a meeting to our city, country music may make number 10, if it makes the list at all. The naysayers miss the point that these are business meetings. This ain’t Hee Haw. Factors including strategic meetings management and procurement policies, destination value and attendee appeal, meetings infrastructure, airlift and more drive the overarching business case that must be made when selecting a meeting destination. Planners must demonstrate ROI for their decisions. All things being equal, a right-sized facility places us in an enviable competitive position. Our CVB has proven that with the number of bookings already on the center calendar.
In addition, facts don’t support the bizarre conclusions drawn in the first article (“The dying convention business; It’s a death rattle….the post-9/11 recovery never happened. Attendance numbers keep sliding”). Really!?! On what planet? Sure there are exceptions, but overall, following a period of uncertainty, there was broad recovery in the meetings industry following 9/11. In fact until the bottom fell out of the economy beginning last year, business was a booming seller’s market. For every example given for decreasing attendance and the demise of the industry, there are plenty that contradict that assertion. As in every other business, there’s no question that the economic environment has caused cutbacks and cancellations in the last year or so in meetings, events and incentive programs, but even now, death rattle? To paraphrase Mark Twain, “Rumors of the death of the meetings industry have been greatly exaggerated.”
In fact, according to the George P. Johnson 2009 EventView Report http://tinyurl.com/cqmfqe senior sales and marketing executives in North America believe that among all marketing channels, meetings and events are the discipline that can be leveraged now to best drive ROI, and accelerate and deepen brand relationships. This report shows that CMOs and senior marketers believe events are the most effective medium to engage customers and move them to purchasing behavior – even in this down economy.
While reasonable questions remain about timing and economy, there is broad consensus that the center should be built. I challenge assumptions drawn in these articles about whether the center is necessary. The comparisons drawn in this article between other cities is not unlike comparing apples to bicycles. Examples noted from the Sanders report illustrated cities that pursued expansions despite having competitive centers in place. That is certainly overbuilding. The difference in Nashville is that our current facility has been undersized since the day it opened. This city is not chasing Las Vegas and Orlando with this project, but seeking to level the playing field and enable us to compete fairly. We will win some and we will lose some, but one thing is for sure- if we don’t have a building, we’re not in the game at all.
Comparisons to the Sommet Center and LP Field don’t hold up, either. Unlike these examples, a dramatically different financing mechanism assures that the project is paid for by visitors. There’s no question that in the years since this project was first proposed, study after study assessing need and feasibility have been presented and debated. Even some of the projects sharpest critics have come on board when they learn the facts. Nashville has taken appropriate measures to analyze the likely impact of the convention center project and perform due diligence.
Should we be concerned about the economic climate? You bet. Notwithstanding the obvious fact that this cycle won’t last forever, the risk for our city is far greater should we do nothing than if we follow the current thoughtful approach to major investments such as the Music City Center.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)