See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233115516

Key Performance Indicators of the MICE Industry and

the Top 25 United States and Canadian CVBs

Article  in  Journal of Convention & Event Tourism · July 2008

DOI: 10.1080/15470140802195019

CITATIONS READS

3 1,629

1 author:

David M. Pearlman
University of New Orleans
12 PUBLICATIONS   99 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Crowdfunding View project

All content following this page was uploaded by David M. Pearlman on 25 July 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Key Performance Indicators of the MICE
Industry and the Top 25 United States
and Canadian CVBs
David Pearlman

ABSTRACT. The conventions and meetings industry is very large and has
many stakeholders. Several trade associations monitor and report industry
activity; however, no one single document aggregates the various indus-
try indicators. Approximately 15 years ago, the Chicago Convention and
Tourism Bureau started an annual survey of convention and visitors bureaus
(CVBs) regarding key performance indicators (KPIs). Additionally, other
industry secondary data (e.g., labor rates and average daily airlift) were
collected. In January of 2005, 111 CVBs in the United States and Canada
were sent a self-administered survey. This report documents these findings
with recommendations supporting standardization of recordkeeping and key
performance indicator calculations.

KEYWORDS. MICE, KPIs, budgets, exhibit space, labor rates

INTRODUCTION

The meetings, incentive, convention, and exhibition (MICE) industry

is very large and getting bigger. According to a presentation by Desti-
nation Marketing Association International given last year, in 2005 there
were 440 convention centers and exhibit halls in the United States and
Canada with over 82 million square feet of exhibit space and another 23+
million square feet of meeting space (Meeting Professionals International

David Pearlman is affiliated with University of New Orleans Lester E. Kabacoff

School of Hotel, Restaurant and Tourism Administration, 451 Kirschman Hall,
2000 Lakeshore Drive, New Orleans, LA 70145 (E-mail: depearlma@uno.edu).
Journal of Convention & Event Tourism, Vol. 9(2), 2008
Available online at http://jcet.haworthpress.com


C 2008 by The Haworth Press. All rights reserved.
doi: 10.1080/15470140802195019 95
96 JOURNAL OF CONVENTION & EVENT TOURISM

and American Express, 2007). The annual convention center construction

update noted that 41 projects currently underway in the United States
and Canada would add another 7.3 million square feet by 2010 to an
already sizable supply of exhibit space (Lanigan, 2006). According to
FutureWatch 2007, in 2004 this travel sector was estimated to have con-
tributed more then $122 billion to the United States economy and is cred-
ited with creating over 1.71 million jobs (International Association of
Exhibitions and Events, 2007; Meeting Professionals International and
American Express, 2007). This industry segment is sometimes referred to
as the MICE market (meetings, incentive, conventions, and exhibitions).
The MICE market has many stakeholders, including, but not limited to,
convention and visitors bureaus (CVBs), convention centers, labor unions,
trade associations, hotels, meeting planners, restaurants, travel attractions,
and whole destination cities (Professional Convention Management As-
sociation Education Foundation, 2007). The industry’s activity and char-
acteristics have been reported in several trade association publications
and a few refereed academic journals including, but again not limited to,
Tradeshow Week, Meeting Professionals International, Pricewatershouse
Coopers, Destination Marketing Association International, Center for Ex-
hibition Industry Research, and the Journal of Conventions and Event
Tourism.
By the end of WWII, very few U.S. convention centers existed; however,
during the 1970s and early 1980s over 100 convention centers were built
(Spiller, 2002). According to Var, Cesario, and Mauser (1985), before
1960 less then 25 cities in North America actively bid for the convention
business and by 1985 the number of competing cities grew to over 100
and by 1996 there were over 500 convention centers (Spiller, 2002). Weber
and Chon (2002) noted that it was not only the number of convention
centers developed in such a short time but the 10 million square feet of
exhibit space available in 1990 with expansions and new facilities through
2004 nearly doubling 1990 statistics that are of interest to researchers and
practictioners alike.
A great deal of research has been conducted regarding site-specific
variables that influence the selection of a convention location (Chacko
& Fenich, 2000; Clark & McCleary, 1995; Fortin & Ritchie, 1977; Var
et al., 1985; Zelinsky, 1994). Crouch and Ritchie (1998) reviewed the site
selection research and found the majority to be based on opinion, anecdotal
evidence, and industry experience. Further, they identified and grouped 36
convention destination attibutes into eight primary categories that govern
destination choice.
 David Pearlman 97

Understanding this complex industry is very complicated, which makes

comparing travel destination performance problematic (Fenich, 1998).
Many measures have been developed by the industry to assess industry
activity, thus permitting the comparison and ranking of the MICE market
within individual destinations (KPIs). Some utilized measures used within
the industry include CVB budgets, economic impacts, net square footage
of convention space, occupancy rates of both hotels and convention cen-
ters, number of attendees, and city-wide events (e.g., number of events
with more then 5,000 square feet of exhibition space a city and/or events
yielding at least 3,000 peak room nights) in a given year (Association
for Convention Marketing Executives, 2007; International Association of
Exhibitions and Events, 2007; Larson & Rooney, 2006; Pearlman, 2006).
Pricewaterhouse Coopers (2005) said that the information they collect in
their annual convention center reports is “vital to the successful operation
of exhibition and convention facilities on a National Basis” (p. 1).
Several industry researchers have ranked destinations’ MICE activity,
but no one seems to agree on the criteria regarding how to rank and what
measures are most appropriate when ranking destinations’ MICE perfor-
mance. Clearly, good information is needed because many “decisions about
resource allocation by both private and public sector stakeholders greatly
depend on accurate information regarding potential gains” (Dwyer, 2002, p.
21). Documenting that this issue is current, just recently there was a rather
lengthy debate regarding the need for consensus regarding evaluative crite-
ria among destination cities on a Web-based discussion group of state and
regional tourism research directors (State and Provincial Research Discus-
sion Group, 2007). Pricewaterhouse Coopers (PWC) collected convention
center occupancy rates, which is a good measure of operating performance;
however, interviews with several CVB research departments concluded that
almost all convention centers have different length operational periods and
methods for calculating the economic impact or direct expenditures gen-
erated by the MICE industry (Pricewaterhouse Coopers, 2005; Repass,
Bruinzeel, Keren, & Mishell, 2006). Also noting problems with reliable
data, in an Expo article on convention center trends (Kirkwood, 2007)
noted PWC’s acknowledgement of reporting attendance figure inconsis-
tencies in their annual report, which was attributed to “how attendance
was reported by the centers and the shows themselves” (p. 2). Frequently,
destinations issue press releases documenting the economic impact of in-
dividual events/conventions to the regional economy. Their assessments
are somewhat questionable because CVBs have been collecting direct ex-
penditures and incorrectly calling it economic impact. These estimates,
98 JOURNAL OF CONVENTION & EVENT TOURISM

based on improperly collected data and best judgment, not to mention sev-
eral other problems with current recordkeeping, indicate a need for more
precise and defensible record keeping and standardized CVB performance
reporting. In Convention Tourism: International Research and Industry
Perspectives, Dwyer (2002) reviewed economic impact studies carried out
in Australia over the past decade and found several concerns relating to
individual studies and to the comparability of studies, including differences
in methodology, data collection methods, and aggregation of and accuracy
of expenditure data. Accurate information is critical to determine appro-
priate governmental support. The examples listed above indicate a need
for an industry-wide consensus on operations measurement characteris-
tics (e.g., standardized length of convention center operating season and a
standardized method of calculating the economic “contribution” of MICE
business) if accurate comparison among destinations is desired. Further-
more, the different “rulers” currently being employed by destinations or
convention centers may result in poor decision-making and planning due to
inaccurate city-by-city comparisons. For example, some destinations may
underallocate or overallocate resources to the MICE industry based on this
information, which may result in less than optimum economic benefits.
Even though there are numerous stakeholders and information providers
regarding this industry, no single source could be located that aggregates
all of the various industry indicators, which makes strategy development
and decision-making more complicated because of the multiple sources of
information, thus requiring more time and more expense. Also, because of
the difficulty in aggregating industry data, decision-making may be based
on incomplete information. For the reasons listed above, over 10 years ago,
the Chicago Convention and Tourism Bureau (CCTB) started conducting
an annual survey of convention and visitors bureaus regarding their oper-
ating budgets as well as a few other industry statistics. This research also
synthesized additional data sources (i.e., labor rates) to assist in a compre-
hensive side-by-side comparison of destination cities. Disappointedly, due
to organizational changes at the Chicago Convention and Tourism Bureau,
the 15th edition of this report was the final competitive analysis conducted.
The purpose of this document is to: (a) report the findings of the 15th
Annual Competitive Analysis (Pearlman, 2006) to provide an overview and
synthesis of industry data in a single document, (b) to illustrate a need for
an accepted industry-wide standardized method for calculating key perfor-
mance indicators, and (c) to demonstrate the contribution of the CCTB’s
research to stakeholders so that some one may decide to reestablish this
discontinued research agenda with a few methodological enhancements.
 David Pearlman 99

METHODS

Study Participants and Data Collection

In January of 2005, 111 CVBs in the United States and Canada were
mailed a cover letter explaining the purpose of the study and a blank survey
form that they were to self-administer and then fax back to the Chicago
Convention and Tourism Bureau Research Department. Specifically, the
research manager or director of the CVB was sent the questionnaire. In
the event that the organization did not have a research department, the
survey was sent to the executive director/president/CEO. Since this study
was in its 15th year, no incentives were utilized; however, all participating
CVBs did receive a copy of the completed research report, which was
an anticipated annual report used by CVB decision-makers for strategic
planning initiatives. Up to three calls were made to those organizations that
had not responded. This research included a combination of both primary
and secondary data sources to meet project goals and objectives.

Response Rate
Sixty completed questionnaires were returned and usable, represent-
ing a 54.1% response rate. Due to tight reporting deadlines, no methods
were employed to assess nonresponse bias. Telephone calls were made to
encourage survey completion, during which several respondents indicated
their support for the research although they were too short-staffed to collect
the requested data this year. They did indicate that they would participate
in future studies. The New Orleans’ CVB wanted to complete the survey
but were unable to due to Hurricane Katrina.

Data Needs
The primary data consisted of a survey sent to all of the convention
and visitors bureaus located within the United States and Canada. This
study methodology and questionnaire were approved and completed prior
to this researcher’s involvement with the project. The survey was one page
front and back consisting of very small text boxes for the respondent to
fill in the figures. Study participants were required to aggregate several
internal, commercial, and governmental sources because of the types of
data requested regarding their operations. The secondary data used in the
research was obtained through a content analysis of several industry/trade
100 JOURNAL OF CONVENTION & EVENT TOURISM

TABLE 1. Collected Data Points for 15th Annual Competitor

Analysis.

Seasonal average temperature

Airport daily operations and enplanements
Hotel room supply, ADR, occupancy, and tax rate
Rental car tax rates
Group meeting attendance
Average labor rates of convention center support staff
Group meeting attendee direct expenditures
Quantity and square footage of meeting rooms and exhibit space
Quantity and square footage of meeting room and exhibit space expansion projects
Lodging facility expansion projects
CVB budget, staffing, and percentage of budget spent on promotion

association reports, presentations, and Web sites. Table 1 contains a listing

of a selection of variables collected.

RESULTS

The data were entered into Excel by bureau staff personnel. Next, the
data were exported into SPSS for the data analysis. After all of the data
were verified and cleaned, all of the variables’ descriptive statistics were
generated. Then a Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic with a Lilliefors signifi-
cance level for testing normality of the data was calculated for each variable
and findings indicated that almost all of the variables were not normally
distributed. This data characteristic combined with other methodological
aspects dictated that a more conservative approach (e.g., no violations
of assumptions or transformation of data) be adopted so descriptive and
nonparametric statistics were utilized for data analysis and statistical test-
ing. The data collected included many of the variables that the MICE
industry sector utilizes for (a) ranking destinations; (b) assisting meeting
planners in site selection, and (c) guiding policy-makers in resource alloca-
tion. These measures were included to provide an overview and synthesis
of industry data in a single document and to illustrate the need for an ac-
cepted standardized industry-wide methodology for calculating KPIs (e.g.,
convention center operating season). The rank ordering of destinations var-
ied considerably depending upon the measure being used for assessment.
This may be unavoidable; however, the typical consumer of this research
might not (a) note that locations were missing variables, preventing their
 David Pearlman 101

inclusion in the ranking assessment process; (b) note the reliability of

the data collection methods; and (c) note the integrity of the data itself.
Additionally this report presents the top 25 destinations by many of the
industry’s accepted measures used by its stakeholders. It is the opinion of
this researcher that exposure to this research may demonstrate the con-
tribution of the Chicago Convention and Tourism Bureau’s discontinued
research program so that it may be considered worthwhile by another en-
tity but with the greater attention to methodological rigor noted in the
discussion section of this document. The report includes many tables and
figures illustrating a selection of variables: (a) bureau budgets and staffing;
(b) exhibit hall and meeting room supply; (c) lodging environment; (d)
labor rates; (e) average daily airlift; and (f) event attendance and delegate
expenditures.

Bureau Budgets and Staffing

Overall, when comparing the 74 respondents of 2004 to the 60 of 2005,
budgets increased a modest 4.55%. Figure 1 indicates the distribution of
budgets for this year’s report. Of the bureaus reporting, budgets range from
$1,000,000 (Boise, ID) to over $227,819,800 (Las Vegas, NV). While the
mean budget was $13,885,866, the median was about $8.5 million annually.
The standard deviation was almost $32 million and is positively skewed.
Almost all bureaus that responded to this question (n = 50) indicated
some level of change from the previous year. Figure 2 presents the top 25
CVB budgets.
In comparing those bureaus that responded to both this year’s and last
year’s survey (n = 47), only four bureaus’ budgets stayed the same. Thirty

FIGURE 1. Distribution of CVB Budgets by Category.

102 JOURNAL OF CONVENTION & EVENT TOURISM

FIGURE 2. Distribution of Top 25 CVB Budgets.

bureaus reported budget increases ranging from 0.5 to 43.6% with an

average increase of 11%. There were 13 bureaus who reported budget
decreases ranging from −0.2 to −49.8%, with an average decrease of
almost 9%. Salt Lake City reported the largest increase and Buffalo reported
the largest decrease. The Wilcoxon signed rank test statistic was p = 0.016,
indicating that there was a significant difference between the 2004 and 2005
CVB budgets.
When examining budget changes by category groupings based on budget
amount, one can see a consistent pattern. Figure 3 illustrates changes by
CVB budgets inclusive of the cumulative percentage increase/decrease
within each category. Again, only those CVBs that also provided last
year’s budget figures were included in this comparison.
Respondents were given an opportunity to document reasons why their
budgets were changing and 43 responded with answers including: (a) large
increases in advertising endeavors; (b) newly introduced sales incentives
(e.g., short-term booking bonuses); (c) bed tax revenues are up; (d) we are
no longer experiencing 9/11 implications; (e) overall city budget problems;
and (f) decrease in international tourists and large reductions in provin-
cial grant opportunities. This listing partially explains shifts in funding
levels.
 David Pearlman 103

FIGURE 3. Distribution of CVB Budgets Average Change by Category.

The survey also collected some data regarding the proportion of the
budget allocated for convention promotion (including salaries). The range
was from 8 to 90% with a mean of 41.6 and a median of 38% of CVB
budgets used in the promotion of conventions. Among all of the variables
tested, this was one of the only variables that were normally distributed,
even with a standard deviation of 17.2%.
It was believed that staffing levels were correlated with budget size.
Since this variable was not normally distributed, a Spearman’s rho rank-
order correlation coefficient, a nonparametric equivalent to a Pearson’s
correlation, was calculated and a very strong relationship (correlation co-
efficient of 0.93) was significant at the (a = 0.01) level. CVB total staff
size ranged from 12 (Hartford, CT) to 459 (Las Vegas) employees with
a mean of 57 and a median of 49. Convention sales staff (not including
assistants) totals ranged from 2 (Winnipeg) to 22 (Orlando), with a mean of
9 people. Las Vegas reported a convention sales staff of 18. The literature
has noted that the services division of the CVB is playing a much larger
role in client retention and selection among new clients. The average num-
ber of convention bureau services people (not including assistants) was 5
with a median of 3 and ranged from 1 (many locations) to 93 (Las Vegas)
person departments. The standard deviation was rather large and positively
skewed at 12.66 people.
104 JOURNAL OF CONVENTION & EVENT TOURISM

Exhibit Hall and Meeting Room Supply

This section of the report will include an overview of the supply of
exhibit space found within American and Canadian responding CVBs. The
survey inquired about both current and planned expansions of major exhibit
hall net square footage, number of meeting rooms and square footage, and
the net square footage of all other support areas. The data collected for some
of these measures contained several missing values; however, the findings
are reported so that readers may gain some perspective. Several of these
figures and tables data are presented according to categories previously
developed by Chicago bureau staff and were adopted here to permit year-
to-year comparisons. Due to page constraints, only the current available
space will be reported.
Respondents were asked to list the name and size of their largest exhibit
space. Among those who answered (n = 46), the range was from just over
19,000 square feet found in Anchorage, Alaska, to the 2.2 million square
foot facility found in Chicago, Illinois. The average CVB reported that
its largest exhibit hall was 436,040 square feet, the median was just over
250,000 square feet, and the standard deviation was almost 500,000 square
feet. Figure 4 presents the distribution of current exhibit space by category
and Figure 5 presents the top 25 CVBs based on total exhibit space at time
this research was conducted.
A few industry reports (Kirkwood, 2007; Meeting Professionals In-
ternational and American Express, 2007) have indicated several changes
in the way that meetings and conventions have been operating. Lately,
there has been an increase in meetings, requiring several meeting rooms
to be used concurrently. This change has had some facility renovation

FIGURE 4. Distribution of Current Exhibit Space (Square Footage by Cat-

egory).
 David Pearlman 105

FIGURE 5. Distribution of Top 25 CVB by Exhibit Space.

and development implications, including the need for additional food and
beverage setups and the need for more adaptive and flexible room config-
urations. One question requested the number and size of facility meeting
room spaces. Among those who answered this question (n = 48), the
range was from 10 meeting rooms (e.g., Des Moines, IA) to 144 meet-
ing rooms (Las Vegas). The average CVB reported that its facility had
49 meeting rooms and the median was 46 rooms; however, the mode was
24 and the standard deviation was 31 meeting rooms. Another question
captured the square footage of each facility dedicated to meeting rooms,
and among those who answered (n = 52), the range was from 14,000
(Des Moines) to over 500,000 square feet (Orlando). The mean CVB re-
ported 106.2 thousand square feet of space dedicated to meeting rooms;
the median was 81.5 thousand square feet and the mode or most fre-
quent CVB reported 25,000 square feet of meeting space. The standard
deviation was large for this variable at 103.1 thousand square feet of meet-
ing space and positively skewed. Table 2 details the number and square
footage of meeting space by the categories created based on total facility
footprint.
106
TABLE 2. Current Distribution of Meeting Space by Category

Segments based on Total Exhibit Space

<100K 100K – 249K 250K – 499K 500K – 999K >1M

Current Total Sq. Current Total Sq. Current Total Sq. Current Total Sq. Current Total Sq.
Number of Footage of Number of Footage of Number of Footage Number of Footage of Number of Footage of
Meeting Meeting Meeting Meeting Meeting Meeting Meeting Meeting Meeting Meeting
Measure Rooms Rooms Rooms Rooms Rooms Rooms Rooms Rooms Rooms Rooms

Sample Size 10 10 12 13 9 9 5 8 4 4
Mean 28 45,319 37 63,841 48 81,893 76 140,049 122 321,903
Median 24 33,523 32 53,000 50 88,535 68 129,500 124 302,051
Mode 24 14,782 61 14,000 53 20,300 64 16,000 96 164,719
Std. Deviation 14 28,812 18 36,381 13 37,466 18 84,325 22 153,813
Minimum 15 14,782 10 14,000 18 20,300 64 16,000 96 164,719
Maximum 63 100,000 65 131,700 67 136,664 108 300,000 144 518,790
 David Pearlman 107

TABLE 3. Lodging Statistics Current Distribution of Meeting Space by

Category

Central Business Distric Lodging Statistics

Room Supply Occupancy Rate Average Daily Rate

Statistics (CBD) (CBD) (CBD)

Sample Size 55 43 44
Mean 11,536 64.6 $115.30
Median 5,000 64.7 $113.78
Mode 800 72.4 $52.48
Std. Deviation 18,115 7.6 $34.08
Minimum 800 50.0 $52.48
Maximum 111,155 83.0 $212.00

Lodging Environment
A destination’s lodging situation can weigh heavily in the overall MICE
market performance. If the region does not have enough rooms to support
large groups, the destination will not be considered for site selection. Fur-
ther, the area’s lodging average daily rate (ADR) and occupancy levels will
affect the cost of attendance for its attendees as well as the revenues gen-
erated by exhibitors and conference sponsors. It was believed that higher
lodging costs would negatively affect both attendance and delegate expen-
ditures. Again, since the data were not normally distributed, a Spearman’s
rho rank-order correlation coefficient was calculated and findings indicated
that higher ADR did not significantly influence either attendance or ex-
penditures. Again, this variable did have several missing cases. Table 3
details the lodging statistics for the destinations’ central business districts
for either the CVB’s calendar or FY2005. Figure 6 illustrates the top 25
destinations based on total room supply at the time of this investigation.

Labor Rates
The labor rate data were extracted from the 2005 Annual Survey of Labor
Rates (Crum, 2006). This report includes labor rates for convention center
services and subcontractor data for American and Canadian locations. The
108 JOURNAL OF CONVENTION & EVENT TOURISM

FIGURE 6. Central Business District Room Supply.

survey was intended to be a general guideline for labor rates and should not
be used as an exact rate sheet. The Canadian figures were converted to U.S.
dollars using the conversion rate available at the time of the analysis and
the averages reported in this report were generated using the following six
categories of labor: decorators, drayage, carpenters, riggers, electricians,
and plumbers.
The average hourly labor rate in 2005 was $72.10, which was an increase
of approximately 6.6% over what this report indicated last year ($67.62).
As a reference point, the percentage increase in last year’s report (2004
over 2003) was approximately 1.4%. In 2005, there were 17 cities posting
decreases in average labor rates compared to 2004. This is comparable to
the 15 cities that observed decreases in this dataset last year. The largest
decrease by percentage was observed in Nashville, Tennessee, where the
2004 rate of $77.67 fell to $56.63 in 2005. In last year’s report, Nashville,
Tennessee, had an increase of 21.6%. Figure 7 documents the five largest
increases and decreases in average labor rates from the previous year.
 David Pearlman 109

FIGURE 7. Five Largest Increases and Decreases in Average Labor Rates

From 2004 to 2005.

The largest increases this year in labor rates were practically a tie, with
both San Francisco and Cincinnati realizing increases of about 42%. Rates
went from $45.12 to $64.16 in Cincinnati and the rates in San Francisco
went from $85.42 to $121.23 in 2005, which made San Francisco the most
expensive labor market. These increases were followed by those of St.
Louis, Montreal, Toronto, and Columbus. According to Crum (2005), in an
article entitled “Less Bang for Your Buck” the increase in labor rates may be
explained from the “. . . need for service contractors to increase their contri-
butions to union workers’ benefits and pension funds, while others theorize
that general service contractors are doing their best to maximize profits”
(p. 1). Figure 8 details the top 25 locations based on average labor rates.

Location Airlift
Location accessibility greatly influences attendance at exhibitions, con-
ventions, and meetings. If participants can get to the event location eas-
ily via plane, train, or interstates, higher attendance or participation is
likely. According to Meeting Professionals International (Pinchera, 2007),
110 JOURNAL OF CONVENTION & EVENT TOURISM

FIGURE 8. Average Labor Rates (Top 25)

in addition to hotel rooms and meeting space, airlift and access to trans-
portation are very important in site selection. Ease of access can involve
the presence of an international airport, the number of daily flights, and
the availability of direct flights from feeder cities. This survey did collect
several data points relating to air service including average daily oper-
ations and enplanements/deployments; however, due to numerous data
irregularities, none were used in the research. Fortuitously, the Airports
Council International (ACI) produces monthly and annual reports quanti-
fying passengers, aircraft movement, and cargo tonnage (Airports Council
International North America, 2006). The literature indicates that ease of
access is very important in site selection. The Chicago Convention and
Tourism Bureau’s sales department’s standard operating procedure is to
include within all sales proposals a comparison of regional airlift capa-
bilities to leverage the ease of access for potential MICE attendees and
exhibitors. Figure 9 shows the difference in average daily flights among
the top 25 airports located in America and Canada.
 David Pearlman 111

FIGURE 9. 2005 Average Daily Airlift (Top 25 U.S. and Canadian Airports).

Attendance and Expenditures

A location’s attractiveness, ease of access, and cost to attendees and
exhibitors can greatly influence the destination’s MICE market perfor-
mance. If the meeting, conference, or exhibition is too expensive (e.g.,
high lodging costs and high labor rates) or too difficult to get to (e.g., lim-
ited air service), the event’s attendance and regional expenditures will be
affected. Both of these measures are key performance indicators used by
industry stakeholders to compare destination attractiveness and competi-
tiveness. Additionally, these data points are frequently used when seeking
additional political and fiscal industry support.
The literature has documented some level of apprehension regarding the
integrity of both of these industry statistics (Dwyer, 2002; Pricewaterhouse
Coopers, 2005). In the case of this research, 18 cases did not provide data
regarding their attendance figures at meetings, events, and conventions (n
= 42). A few destinations not included in this analysis include Toronto;
San Antonio; Washington, DC; Hawaii; Miami; and San Francisco. All
of these are major markets. The range in MICE attendance was 41,356
(Arlington, TX) to almost 6 million in Chicago. The mean was almost
112 JOURNAL OF CONVENTION & EVENT TOURISM

800,000, while the median was just over 600,000 event attendees. Due to the
methodology of collection, on the CVB side (e.g., attendance estimation)
and on the survey design (e.g., poor question wording and layout), it is
unclear whether exhibitors or some public event attendees were included
in these estimates. Most probably some of the cases included them while
others did not, reducing the reliability of the descriptive statistics presented.
Figure 10 shows the top 25 CVBs that reported group attendance figures.
Out of 60 cases that retuned the surveys, 23 did not provide data re-
garding the direct expenditures of the attendees (n = 37). More note-
worthy destinations not included in this analysis include Chicago; Dal-
las; Toronto; San Antonio; Washington, DC; Hawaii; Miami; and San
Francisco. Group expenditures ranged from just over $360,000 (Boise, ID)
to a little over $6.8 billion (Las Vegas). The average destination reported
about $650 million with a median of just over $226 million in delegate
expenditures. Again, due to the methods employed in calculations and the
wording of this question, it is unclear whether exhibitors were included in
these estimates. Figure 11 presents the top 25 cases that reported their direct
expenditures associated with group events, not including public consumer
show spending.

FIGURE 10. Group Meeting Attendees (Top 25).

 David Pearlman 113

FIGURE 11. Direct Expenditures of Group Meeting Attendees (Top 25).

These data were presented because they illustrate the problems associ-
ated with the collection of these data and their accuracy, which supports the
movement to a standardized reporting system development and adoption.
Incongruously, a few cases were able to provide data concerning the num-
ber of MICE attendees and their associated delegate expenditures; however,
these same cases did not provide departmental budget figures. Was this a
deliberate oversight or do they not know their budget? This finding is be-
ing interpreted as another example of problematic recordkeeping practices.
Regardless, this incomplete data may be used without acknowledgment of
its shortcomings in CVB rankings and influencing CVB policy, resource
allocation, and decision-making.

DISCUSSION

The meeting, incentive, conventions, and exhibitions (MICE) industry

is very large and getting bigger. According to FutureWatch 2007, in 2004
this travel sector was estimated to have contributed more than $122 bil-
lion to the United States’ economy and was credited with creating over
114 JOURNAL OF CONVENTION & EVENT TOURISM

1.71 million jobs (International Association of Exhibitions and Events,

2007; Meeting Professionals International and American Express, 2007).
Understanding this industry is very complicated, which makes comparing
site performance problematic. Many measures have been developed by
the industry to assess industry activity, which has resulted in numerous
methodologies and ranking schemes to assess destinations. Several indus-
try researchers have ranked destinations’ MICE activity, but no one seems
to agree on the criteria regarding which measures are most appropriate
when ranking destinations.
Clearly, good information is needed because many “decisions about re-
source allocation by both private and public sector stakeholders greatly
depend on accurate information regarding potential gains” (Dwyer, 2002,
p. 21). Even though there are numerous stakeholders and information
providers regarding this industry, no single source could be located that
aggregates all of the various industry key performance indicators (KPIs).
This deficiency makes strategy development and decision-making more
complicated, more time consuming, and more expensive. Hence, the pur-
pose of this research was to (a) report the findings of the 15th Annual
Competitive Analysis to provide an overview and synthesis of industry
data in a single document, (b) illustrate a need for an accepted industry-
wide standardized method for calculating key performance indicators, and
(c) demonstrate the contribution of the CCTB’s research to stakeholders so
that someone may decide to reestablish this discontinued research agenda
with a few methodological enhancements.
This research included a combination of primary and secondary data
to meet project goals and objectives. In January 2005, 111 CVBs in the
United States and Canada were sent a fax-back self-administered survey.
Sixty completed questionnaires were returned and usable, representing
a 54.1% response rate. This report included many tables and figures il-
lustrating a selection of MICE KPIs: (a) bureau budgets and staffing;
(b) exhibit hall and meeting room supply; (c) lodging environment; (d)
labor rates; (e) average daily airlift; and (f) attendance and delegate expen-
ditures. The aggregation of the secondary data combined with the primary
data collected does permit the ranking of destinations on many KPIs.
Unfortunately, the examination of these data only supported other re-
searchers noting problems with data integrity (e.g., reliable data collec-
tion, attendance estimation inconsistencies and reported differences in
methodology concerning the calculation of delegate expenditures), vali-
dating the need for the development of universally accepted practices and
the adoption of an industry-wide collective method for calculating key
 David Pearlman 115

performance indicators (Kirkwood, 2007), thus meeting the second re-

search objective.
Yet the initial questions present themselves again: which are the most
appropriate measures to dictate destination rankings and how can more
accurate and reliable metrics be generated and universally adopted? With
regards to the second research purpose, possibly the time is ripe for ele-
vating the rigor of the methods used to generate MICE key performance
indicators. According to FutureWatch 2006, there will be increased atten-
tion on return on investment (ROI) and return on objectives (ROO). Further,
the report states that a focus on implementing reliable measurement sys-
tems, as organizations seek to evaluate the value of meetings, will occur
(Meeting Professionals International and American Express, 2006). Also
indicating that the timing may be upon industry stakeholders, according to
DMAI’s Forecast for CVB & Destination Decision Making Report, eight
state and regional CVB associations, representing 25 states and provinces,
and the Travel & Tourism Research Association have endorsed the in-
dustry’s recommended performance reporting standards and approved of
the convention sales function ROI formula and the CVB Uniform System
of Accounts (Destination Marketing Association International, 2005). A
critical mass is forming and moving in the correct direction; however, due
to the complexity associated with the adoption of the DMAI processes
combined with CVB staffing and research capabilities, it is recommended
that CVBs partner with universities to aid in the implementation of this
system attributable to a learned appreciation for data integrity.
Prior to the implementation of such recording practices, it is also rec-
ommended that a more rudimentary education is needed to teach industry
stakeholders the difference between direct expenditures and economic im-
pacts. Many CVB and industry stakeholders use these terms interchange-
ably, which is incorrect. Another part of this education should address
more defensible and robust methods for estimating industry activity; con-
sequently, it is recommended that stakeholders learn the value and methods
behind scientifically grounded sampling methodology to generate better
data for informed strategy development. First, MICE activity attendance
estimation, including both exhibitors and attendees, should be part of the
curriculum, and second, the stakeholder education should address various
methods to estimate MICE activity including total delegate (both exhibitor
and attendee) attendance and expenditures.
This research used a fax-back form that resulted in many illegible fields
requiring many telephone callbacks for data entry verification. Addition-
ally, the wording of several questions posed a potential for respondent
116 JOURNAL OF CONVENTION & EVENT TOURISM

interpretation errors; therefore, it is recommended that a Web-based form

be used in the future for data collecting. Further, it is recommended that the
questionnaire be reworded and pretested to improve its validity and relia-
bility. In lieu of using some of the primary data collected, a few secondary
sources (both credible and free/low cost) of industry statistics were located
and added to the list of key performance indicators (e.g., average daily air-
lift). Therefore, based on the availability of such data, it is recommended
that CVB and other industry stakeholders learn how to identify, collect, and
incorporate secondary data sources into their body of industry knowledge
prior to strategic planning. After working at a CVB and after discussing
CVB standard operating procedures (e.g., regarding the calculation MICE
attendance and economic contribution) among CVB research personnel, it
is recommended that the forming of stronger alliances between CVBs and
the Destination Marketing Association International occur. This organiza-
tion sponsors many collaborative research studies (e.g., ExPact, Delegate
Expenditure Study) where, collectively, many CVBs can benefit from the
conducting of a defensible independent expenditure study that will ensure
uniformity in calculations, thus permitting reliable destination compar-
isons. Consequently, the cost of participation in this existing research
program in comparison to commissioning independent research may be
the difference in delegate expenditure estimates based on “research” or
delegate expenditure estimates based on “best judgment.” In conclusion,
the objectives of this research were hopefully achieved. According to the
industry leaders, many are supporting the refinement and standardization
initiatives regarding convention and visitor bureau recordkeeping and key
performance indicator calculations. Only time will tell whether industry
stakeholders’ actions follow the words expressed in trade interviews sup-
porting standardized performance reporting and only time will tell whether
someone picks up the discontinued research program of the Chicago Con-
vention and Tourism Bureau and conducts an annual survey of CVBs’ key
performance indicators.

REFERENCES
Airports Council International North America. (2006, June). Stats and surveys traffic statis-
tics. Retrieved August 31, 2007, from: http://www.aci-na.org/asp/traffic.asp?art=217
Association for Convention Marketing Executives. (2007, August 22). Association for
Convention Marketing Executives Resource Library. Retrieved August 22, 2007, from:
http://www.acmenet.org/container.cfm?page=resource-library.cfm
Chacko, H., & Fenich, G. (2000). Determining the importance of US convention destination
attributes. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 6(3), 211–220.
 David Pearlman 117

Clark, J., & McCleary, K. (1995). Influencing associations’ site-selection process. Cornell
Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 36, 61–68.
Crouch, G. I., & Ritchie, J. R. (1998). Convention site selection research: A review, con-
ceptual model, and propositional framework. Journal of Convention and Exhibition
Management, 49–69.
Crum, R. (2005, June 27). Less bang for your buck. Retrieved August 31, 2007, from:
http://www.tradeshowweek.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA621732
Crum, R. (2006, June 26). Rate fluctuations never ever on a Sunday. Tradeshow Week, 6–17.
Destination Marketing Association International. (2005). Standard CVB performance re-
porting: A handbook for CVBs. Washington, DC: Author.
Dwyer, L. (2002). Economic contribution of conventions. In K. Weber & K. Chon (Eds.),
Convention tourism: International research and industry perspectives (pp. 21–36). Bing-
hamton, NY: Haworth Press.
Fenich, G. (1998). Convention center operating characteristics. Journal of Convention &
Exhibition Management, 1(2/3), 1–25.
Fortin, A., & Ritchie, B. (1977). An empirical study of association decision processes in
convention site selection. Journal of Travel Research, 15(4), 13–20.
International Association of Exhibitions and Events. (2007). IAEE industry overview
presentation. Retrieved August 22, 2007, from: http://iaem.newmediagateway.com/
downloads/1187842746.59004700 3d22e23f6b/ IAEE%20Industry%20Overview%20
Presentation.ppt
Kirkwood, H. (2007, January). Convention center trends. Retrieved August 25, 2007, from:
http://www.expoweb.com/Site Selection/2007JANConventioncentertrends.htm
Lanigan, K. (2006, September). Annual convention center construction update. Retrieved
August 26, 2007, from: http://www.expoweb.com/Site Selection/0609September-
Constructionfeature3.htm
Larson, G., & Rooney, J. (2006, October 31). A season of milestones. Tradeshow Week,
1–2.
Meeting Professionals International and American Express. (2006). Hospitality net: Orga-
nization info—Meeting professionals international. Retrieved September 1, 2007, from:
http://www.hospitalitynet.org/file/152002362.pdf
Meeting Professionals International and American Express. (2007). Futurewatch 2007: A
comparative outlook on the global business of meetings. Dallas, TX: Author.
Pearlman, D. (2006). 15th Annual competitive analysis. Chicago: Chicago Convention and
Tourism Bureau.
Pinchera, M. (2007, June). The visitation. Retrieved August 31, 2007, from:
http://www.mpiweb.org/CMS/mpiweb/mpicontent.aspx?id=9890
Pricewaterhouse Coopers. (2005). 2005 Convention center report. Tampa, FL: Author.
Professional Convention Management Association Education Foundation. (2007). Profes-
sional meeting management (5th ed.). Chicago: Author.
Repass, K., Bruinzeel, S., Keren, D., & Mishell, D. (2006, February). Annual Days con-
sidered in occupancy rate calculations. (D. Pearlman, Interviewer).
Spiller, J. (2002). History of Convention Tourism. In K. Weber, & K. Chon (Eds.), Conven-
tion tourism: International research and industry perspectives (pp. 7–19). Binghamton,
NY: The Haworth Hospitality Press.
 118 JOURNAL OF CONVENTION & EVENT TOURISM

State and Provincial Research Discussion Group. (2007, July 28). Ranking meetings, events
and conventions. Tallahassee, FL.
Tradeshow Week. (2005). 28th Annual major exhibit hall directory (MEHD). Internet-based
discussion group. Los Angeles: Author.
Weber, K., & Chon, K. (2002). Convention tourism: International research and industry
perspectives. Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Hospitality Press.
Zelinsky, W. (1994). Conventionland USA: The geography of a latterday phenomenon.
Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 84(1), 68–86.

Submission Date: 09/17/07

Revision Date: 02/26/08
Acceptance Date: 04/07/08

View publication stats