This book includes a plain text version that is designed for high accessibility. To use this version please follow this link.
PLENARY Research: top meeting cities Q The Glasgow Model


(McCormick Place) continued from page 19


rules drastically limited what exhibitors and show managers could move in, unload, install, and move out on their own, without union labor, Patronski said, the new rules grant them greater free- dom to do their own work. “This really made a change,” Patronski said, “and made Chicago


RESEARCH Top Cities to Meet


About 700 meeting planners responded to a new survey conducted by Watkins Research Group in association with Flaspohler Research Group. Below is an alphabetical list of the North American cities that planners rated tops in eight categories. For more information, contact Watkins Research Group Principal Curt Watkins at Curt@WatkinsResearchGroup.com.


HOTELS WELL SUITED FOR MY LARGEST MEETINGS


Anaheim Denver


Indianapolis Minneapolis Orlando San Antonio San Diego San Francisco Seattle Toronto Vancouver


EASY ACCESSIBILITY WITHIN THE CITY


Baltimore Denver


Indianapolis Philadelphia San Antonio San Diego San Francisco Seattle Toronto Vancouver Washington, D.C.


24


GREAT ALL- AROUND


CONVENTION CITY


Boston Chicago Denver Orlando San Antonio San Diego San Francisco Seattle Toronto Vancouver Washington, D.C.


SUPERIOR CONVENTION CENTER SERVICES


Indianapolis Minneapolis Orlando Phoenix Portland


Salt Lake City San Antonio San Diego Seattle Toronto Vancouver


Anaheim Austin


Indianapolis Minneapolis Montreal Orlando


Salt Lake City San Diego Seattle Toronto Vancouver


SUPERIOR CONVENTION CENTER FACILITIES


Denver


Indianapolis Minneapolis Orlando Phoenix Portland Salt Lake San Diego Seattle Toronto Vancouver


pcma convene October 2010


Atlanta Baltimore Boston Chicago Dallas Las Vegas New York City Orlando San Diego San Francisco Washington, D.C.


SUPERIOR CVB/DMO


SAFE AND SECURE


EASY TO GET TO


much more exhibitor-friendly and user-friendly and made it more competitive.”


Orgill doesn’t release figures for its shows, but Patronski said that the Fall Dealer Market used most of the 840,000 square feet of exhibit space in McCormick Place’s South Building. Patronski said: “Things went extremely well.” n — Christopher Durso


Risk-Sharing in Glasgow


L


AST MONTH, THE SCOTTISH EXHIBITION + Conference Centre (SECC) and Glasgow City Marketing Bureau announced a new joint initiative called the Glasgow Model — “an entrepreneurial approach to sharing the risk with those holding large-scale events.” Con- vene spoke with SECC Director of Sales Ben Goedegebuure about the program.


Austin Denver


Indianapolis Minneapolis Montreal Portland Salt Lake San Diego Seattle Toronto Vancouver


How did you come up with this initiative? We wanted to find a way to work with them. We thought of creating a model at the conven- tion center whereby we would be risk-sharing with our clients, with a per-delegate fee rather than a fee for the actual venue as a whole. So if the client were going for 1,000 delegates but only got 800, we would underwrite the 20 percent and charge them less. It’s a model that doesn’t happen in convention centers. The Glasgow City Marketing Bureau puts in an additional amount of marketing to get the event going or to get to the numbers that we need, by complementing what the client is doing, and in particular, tapping into the local community [for potential event sponsors]. With this model, if we go beyond the target that we set, we also share in the profits. So we become really business partners in the deal, and we think that’s totally new in the market. This is part of the way we do business: Once we’ve agreed on a price, we fix that price. So if it were a U.S. client, we would fix that price in U.S. dollars, and the SECC takes the risk on the exchange rate.


continued on page 26 www.pcma.org


PHOTO BY JOHN LINDIE


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