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.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)