This book includes a plain text version that is designed for high accessibility. To use this version please follow this link.
convene’s 21st annual meetings market survey


REVENUE


Association and independent meeting professionals reported that, on average, 49 percent of the revenue from their largest 2011 event came from registration, while 26 percent came from exhibit sales, and 20 percent came from sponsorships and grants. The sources of revenue are similar to last year, although the percentage of sponsorships and grants grew by two points in 2011 compared 2010.


ADVERTISING SALES SPONSORSHIP/GRANTS EXHIBIT SALES REGISTRATION


OTHER % OF REVENUE Expositions 2 0 10 20 30 40 50 49 26 20 4


Meetings Hold Steady


 A large majority of respondents—87 percent compared to 81 percent in last year’s survey— did not cut back on the number of days of any multi-day meeting in 2011, compared to 2010. Thirteen percent cut the meeting by one day, compared to 18 percent who shaved their meetings in 2010 by one day.


 For 2012, 90 percent (compared to 88 percent in last year’s survey) do not have plans to cut back on the number of days of any multi-day meeting, compared to 2011. Only nine percent expect to cut the meeting by one day, and one percent by more than one day.


 Less than one in five respondents (19 percent) canceled one or more meetings in 2011. In last year’s survey, 28 percent of respondents said they had canceled one or more meetings in 2010. Seventy-one percent did not cancel any meetings in 2011 and 91 percent did not cancel any meetings planned for 2012.


Making the Decision


Using a scale of “1” for “most important” to “6” for “least important,” 87 percent of respondents rate site visits either “1” or “2” when it comes to deciding where to book their meetings. Sixty-three percent rated one-on- one sales interactions next in importance; followed by online searches (40 percent); fam trips (20 percent); and marketing collateral from venues (14 percent). Forty- six percent said other factors—chief among them, recommendations from colleagues— were important in the decision-making process.


www.pcma.org


pcmaconvene March 2012


61


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126