Are You Tripping Over Dollars to Pick Up Pennies?

Are You Tripping Over Dollars to Pick Up Pennies?
By Rick Dobson, EAG Partner

Recently a meeting planner was struggling with what she perceived to be a serious problem.  The issue was that speakers who chose the special no-cost speaker registration option (which does not include any meal functions) were attending meal functions anyway.  Her inclination going forward was to reinforce the rule in writing to speakers, as well as policing the meal functions more carefully.  She was reaching out to her fellow planners for their advice.  Here’s how I responded. . .

You are not the first person to struggle with this.  But I don’t think it’s a problem that is particularly difficult to solve – it really comes down to a simple financial analysis.

Your conference registration includes three luncheons and two receptions, all of which are available for sponsorship and, therefore, are subsidized in whole or in part.  So, your effective per-person cost is relatively low.  Your registration fees, on the other hand, are significant: As much as $1,825 for non-members.

So ask yourself these questions. . .

How important is the quality of your program in terms of driving attendance?  

How much difficulty would you have attracting the very best speakers (i.e., the kinds of speakers whose inclusion in the program might actually compel someone to register who otherwise would not) if you fully enforced the rule that non-paying speakers can’t attend any meal functions? 

Now I’m sure your answer to the first question is “Very Important,” right?  And you’ve already indicated that many of your speakers balk at having to pay, so that suggests enforcement of the “no-pay, no-eat” rule could affect decisions some speakers make to accept an invitation to speak at your conference.  

The expression “Tripping over dollars to pick up pennies” I believe is applicable here.  As (another poster) suggested (and I think she’s absolutely right), many if not most of your speakers are unlikely to attend the entire event anyway. Between that and the subsidization of your meal functions through sponsorships, the savings you’ll realize through enforcement of that rule can’t be justified given the potential loss of registration revenue.

My opinion (and it is just that, my opinion) is to waive registration fees for speakers and not worry about the few meals they may consume.  The goodwill alone might be reason enough anyway.

Who decides when your show is a success?

A question was posted recently on a trade show forum asking readers if there is a ratio of attendees to booths that can be used to measure an event’s success.  I felt compelled to respond although I knew my answer to this person’s question was probably not what they had hoped for or expected.  Here then was my response. . .

In my opinion, there is no ratio of attendees to exhibitors that would be meaningful in any way, let alone determine your event’s “success.”  OK, perhaps you could devise a formula (or adopt someone else’s rule-of-thumb) for determining success, but it would only be your (i.e., the show organizer’s) definition of success.  But I don’t believe that’s particularly relevant or useful.  The only measurement of success that matters (again, in my opinion) is your exhibitor retention rate.  Exhibitors (at least the ones that actually care about investing their marketing dollars wisely, which these days is most of them) decide whether or not a particular show is “successful” based on how they performed against their own goals and objectives.  

Most exhibitors are looking to connect with a specific subset of attendees.  If the folks they want to meet are there, you have done your job (and by “you” I mean you and your exhibitors because it is – or at least should be – a joint effort after all).  Most exhibitors would probably be delighted if attendance was limited only to those individuals who meet that company’s own, specific qualifications.  Aisles crowded with tire-kickers and others who are not (and will not be) interested in a given exhibitor’s products or services just serve to make the “haystack” larger and the “needles” harder to find.

The Problem with Traffic Building “Games”

We, as show organizers, are the kind of people who are natural problem-solvers.  It’s in our DNA.  So, when we sense that our attendees are not spending as much time on the show floor as we feel they should (or, more likely, when exhibitors come to us to complain that traffic is light), we feel compelled to address the problem – as we should.  But before implementing a “solution,” it’s essential to first determine what exactly is happening, why it’s happening, and what behavioral changes are desired.

When we are inclined to explore traffic building options, it’s usually because we’ve concluded that our exhibitors are not getting the ROI they need to remain loyal to our event and/or we instinctively understand the importance of continually striving to add value.  The operative words here are “ROI” and “value!”  Unfortunately, many traffic building efforts only serve to exacerbate the problem they were intended to solve.

If a show organizer has provided ample time (and by that I mean a reasonable amount of exhibit hours unopposed by other programming) but attendees are still not engaging with exhibitors to the degree that they (the exhibitors) feel is adequate, no traffic building “game” is likely to improve that situation.  I’m not suggesting that it won’t drive traffic to the show floor, because it most certainly will.  It just won’t improve the “quality” of the traffic.

If someone not otherwise inclined to visit the show floor is teased to do so by the prospect of winning some sort of prize, the result will be an endless stream of folks with no interest in the exhibitors’ products or services.  Unfortunately, there’s no way to determine on sight that an individual is not a true prospect but, rather, just interested in getting a sticker.  That wouldn’t be so bad if not for the fact that so many people pretend to be interested in exhibitors’ products or services even though they are not.  I know this from personal experience, both as a show organizer and as an exhibitor. 

Our exhibitors are business people who invest in our events with the expectation of achieving certain goals and objectives.  They have finite budgets and will quickly shift funds from events that don’t deliver to those that do.  Before I would ever implement a traffic builder of any kind, I would want to fully understand what my exhibitors’ goals and objectives were for my event and then determine (with the advice and counsel of my exhibit advisory committee) what strategies can best help them be achieved.

Advice on the Challenges with Collecting Registration Fees

An event planner sought help recently regarding challenges with collecting registration fees.  They allow persons to register and pay by check, but many such payments were still outstanding even by the start of the event.  This left them chasing payment onsite.  Making matters worse was the fact that many of these unpaid registrants became no-shows.  Here’s the advice I offered…

When someone registers for your event, they are effectively entering into a contract with you.  In exchange for the fee paid, you provide them with a “service” of some sort (e.g., educational content, access to the exhibit floor, meals, shuttle bus transportation, discounted hotels, etc. – whatever the case may be).  But there’s a big difference between this transaction and, say, a retail purchase.  If you were selling TVs, for example, and you agree to accept payment when the buyer comes to pick up the TV, it’s not a big deal if the buyer “no-shows” because you still have the TV and can sell it to someone else.  It’s not the same if someone who has registered but not paid no-shows.

Think about the guarantees you have to make that affect your costs.  For example, are any meals included in the registration fee?  (I doubt the hotel or convention center is going to waive charges for uneaten meals.)  When you start to itemize all the things you pay for on a per-person basis, the financial impact of no-shows can really add up.

In a perfect world, you want all persons to pay in full at the time the registration.  But, at a minimum, you want all accounts settled in advance of the first date at which you must make a guarantee or place a binding order for anything that is based on actual registration numbers.  Of course, it’s unlikely that you’d want to cut off registration that soon, which is fine.  But it’s critical that registrations made after a certain date be paid in full at the time of registration.  If you offer on-line registration, you should make sure your system can provide real-time credit card processing.  You mentioned that you allow payment by check.  Since that’s also an option for online payment, there’s no reason (I was going to say “excuse”) for any unpaid no-shows.  The only financial transactions you should be dealing with at your event are onsite registrants.

If you want to save yourself a lot of headaches and limit your financial exposure, a policy of not accepting registrations (or at least not counting them as “real”) without payment is your best bet. 

Merging Two Conferences Into One

An association organizer was concerned that her staff was stretched to the breaking point trying to manage two annual events and was contemplated merging the two into one.  She was interested in understanding the process for managing this change.  Obviously, with so many factors at play, not to mention the potential for unintended consequences, I suggested that a better starting point should be to focus on the “why” rather than the “how.”

We counsel our clients to start by defining the specific goals and objectives that motivate them to consider a change.  Freeing up staffing resources to focus on other important initiatives, which was this person’s primary motivation, may well have been reason enough.  However, I cautioned the importance of fully understanding the potential financial implications.  If the merger of events resulted in an overall reduction in revenue, would that be an acceptable price to pay for what you consider a “greater good?” 

All too often we make decisions based on what we think (or worse yet, hope) will be the result.  What it really comes down to is working through a series of “what if” scenarios, weighing the pros and cons of each and, ultimately, making informed decisions.  In other words, limiting the potential for any “surprises.”  This is definitely not a time for trial and error!

Negotiating for Success

An association meeting planner who’s contract with a third-party exhibit management company was coming up for renewal asked me recently for advice on negotiating the new contract.  The question prompted an interesting discussion.

How you approach any negotiation of this kind should really be driven by your goals and objectives, and how you measure “success.”  If the management company is responsible for sales and not just logistics management, and assuming non-dues revenue is as critically important to your organization as it is to most others, a key measure of success would be you’re bottom-line revenue (i.e., how much you have left after deducting all the fees paid to this company).

When negotiating contracts, there’s a natural tendency to focus on fees.  When it comes to sales, adding (or increasing) incentives might actually be more effective than negotiating a lower fee.  

Of course, there’s no blanket approach to contract negotiations since each situation is unique.  However, I think it is safe to say that you will want to place an emphasis on performance.  Any company you contract with should serve as a true partner, focused first and foremost on achieving your goals and objectives, understanding that their “rewards” come as a result of succeeding on your behalf.