I’ve been active for some time in the Music City Center debate. I support the center. I respect others’ right to disagree and I’ve tried to remain civil; to make at least my part of the debate about facts and to refrain from demonizing individuals who may disagree with my point of view. I will try to do the same here here, but it’s hard to hold back after reading a post at Nashville’s Priorities entitled, “The Convention Business Is Dying – Why Bother?” The information provided here is blatantly untrue. Is the author lying, or just sadly misinformed? You be the judge: http://nashvilles-priorities.blogspot.com/2010/01/convention-business-is-dying-why-bother.html
In the NP blog, data and the supporting graphic are from the Tradeshow Week 200 report on the 200 largest trade shows in the North America. Repeatedly, I’ve debunked this fairy tale with facts and figures that appear elsewhere in my blog. I thought it might be helpful to compile this information in one place.
Even if you accept the source,the very organization that is used to support the author’s argument - Tradeshow Week - contradicts the author's conclusions. Quoting from Tradeshow Week 200 Report for 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."
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
We know where NP is getting their information. Heywood Sanders is a professor who has an ideological opposition to city-supported convention center projects of any kind, which is certainly his prerogative. He has provided NP with numbers to refute the viability of MCC. However, I am bothered by a number of conclusions that he trumpets as fact - and that MCC opponents parrot - that simply don’t hold up under a closer look.
In an article Sanders wrote last year in the Tennessean, he cites four 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’ BEFORE 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’
Comparisons to these cities defy logic. In every instance cited, there were existing centers with substantial space. One could generally agree that these cities and others like them overbuilt to compete with major market venues. The difference here is that our existing center, at 180,000 Sq’ was undersized the day it was opened. We are woefully under built.
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 the above 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.
Strangely, data figures on association meetings, corporate meetings and events, event marketing programs, and incentive travel are conspicuously absent from NP’s flawed conclusion on the state of the industry. Why? When all areas comprising the global meetings and events industry are included, the information does not support NP’s claims. So they choose to cherry pick instead of having an intellectually honest debate.
In addition, a closer look exposes the blog’s bullet points as nothing more than blanks:
• Sustainability – The meetings industry has taken a global lead in issues surrounding sustainability, supporting the U.N. Global Compact, constructing LEED-certified facilities and implementing sustainability strategies, such as BS 8901certification. Corporate social responsibility will be a continuing interest for meeting and event professionals’ organizations, and a potential differentiator for companies and associations that can demonstrate a strong commitment to effective CSR programs.
• Technology – The idea that technology will replace face-to-face meetings is absurd. Technology is certainly a valuable tool that is incorporated more and more in the meeting planner’s tool box, but will it replace face-to face? Come on, Dude. There’s no such thing as a virtual beer. You can’t shake someone’s hand, pat them on the back, hug their neck or kick them in the pants via a webcast. We will always need human connections – not 2-d or even 3-d – but real live experiential human interaction.
• Corporate Spending – Yeah, budgets are tight. Did you notice that the economy is also in the midst of the worst environment since the great depression? Even so, as the just-released 2010 American Express EventView report reveals,"For the year ahead, a broad range of respondents agreed that industry conditions will begin to improve in the second half of 2010, or in 2011, with 41% of suppliers and 28% of planners predicting gradual industry growth in 2010. Meeting and event planners anticipate a 2.8% increase in meetings held and a 4.5% increase in attendance over the next year. Spend per meeting and overall budgets will be the slowest of the five indicators to rebound." One other thing – not every event you are calling a “convention” is corporate. What about association conferences, event marketing programs, sales conferences, product rollouts, and incentive groups?
Look, I realize that passions are high on both sides. We can debate projections, timing, financing and more. However, repeating the bogus assertion that the meeting industry is dying and similar falsehoods does not make them true. This hints of desperation by those who can’t make a credible business case against the MCC project with facts. So they resort to "straw men". It’s petty, not pretty and a disservice to our city.
