This book includes a plain text version that is designed for high accessibility. To use this version please follow this link.
plenary The Latest From Watkins Research RESEARCH Best Cities for Meetings


BOOKING HORIZONS How many years in advance of your largest meeting do you sign and commit to space?


205= 208= Under 1 year


2.5% 2.8%


1000+600= 1000+530= 1 to < 2 years


16.0% 15.3%


Mass Appeal Boston made the list of planners’ top cities.


A total of 730 veteran meeting-planner professionals participated in the eighth biennial survey by the Watkins Research Group, the results of which are now being released. Some key findings:


TOP DESTINATIONS While the study reveals a variety of attributes that can be “tie breakers” or “deal makers,” planners evaluated North American cities in terms of their capability to hold meetings mostly based on these attributes:


› Are the hotels well-suited and situated for large meetings?


› Once there, how easy is it to get into and around the city?


› How easy is it to get to the city?


› What’s the city’s reputation for providing an all-around great convention experience?


› Will the delegates feel “safe and secure” where they are in the city?


› Is the city known for having superior convention center facilities?


› What is the impression of the quality of the services in the convention center?


› Is the destination’s CVB/ DMO considered “superior” in making the event and experience an easy success?


Here are the top dozen destinations (of the 46 cities evaluated this year and in alphabetical order) perceived to deliver what the planners value most:


› Boston › Denver › Indianapolis › Minneapolis › Montreal › Orlando › Salt Lake City › San Antonio › San Diego › Seattle › Toronto › Vancouver


CITIES ON THE MOVE Based on improvements in scores since the last survey, the following are considered


“cities on the move.” Some improved enough in two years to be named to the “Top Destinations” list:


› Boston › Chicago › Dallas › Detroit › Kansas City › Los Angeles › Louisville › Miami › Milwaukee › Montreal › Philadelphia › St. Louis


26 PCMA CONVENE DECEMBER 2012


1000+1000+= 1000+860= 2 to < 3 years


21.5% 18.6%


1000+750= 1000+760= 3 to < 4 years


17.5% 17.6%


1000+670= 1000+790= 4 to < 5 years


16.7% 17.9%


920= 1000+200= 5 to < 6 years


9.2% 12.0%


730= 410= 6 to < 7 years


7.3% 4.1%


940= 970= 7+ years


9.4% 9.7%


2012 Overall 2010 Overall


SOURCE: Based on the Watkins Report of the 2012 survey of meeting planners. The copyrighted full report is made available via subscription only to bona fide CVB or DMOs for use within their own organizations for strategic planning and marketing.


Subscribers review strength and weakness profiles for their own city as well as for all of the other cities evaluated in each survey. Cities are included for evaluation in the study either by being a co-sponsor, or by a co-sponsor requesting to have a competitive cities included in the list of cities evaluated.


For information on obtaining a copy of the 2012 report or being a co-sponsor of the next survey and report, contact Curt@WatkinsResearchGroup.com. A summary of findings of the 2012 report has been provided to all planners who completed the survey.


PCMA.ORG


PHOTOGRAPH BY IAN BRITTON


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  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156