Meetings have value. The process of determining what that
value is, though, doesn't.
However incorrect that conclusion may be, it's the general
consensus of respondents to a new survey commissioned by Meeting Professionals
International of executives at 215 companies that determined that fewer than 5
percent of all meetings are measured for business value. Although assuming
meeting value without measurement may be long-standing practice, given the lack
of any industry analytical standard, it's nevertheless a bad idea, said MPI
chief development officer Didier Scaillet.
"You need to have some objectives as to what you're
trying to achieve and some sort of way of measuring success," Scaillet
said. "You need to justify the spend."
The study, funded through an investment by the AIBTM
meetings and events exhibition in the MPI Foundation and conducted by research
firm Association Insights, highlights the importance of measuring what MPI
calls the business value of meetings, an umbrella term that encompasses the
wide variety of possible calculations. "Some claim BVOM is synonymous with
return on investment; others contend it is return on objective. Maybe it's
both, or neither, or simply a degree of achievement," according to the
study.
That so few have attempted such measurement largely is due
to the process' perceived difficulty and the uncertainty of the efficacy of the
analytics used. "In some cases, meeting planners say the process is too
complex and expensive to be worthwhile," according to the report. They may
be right, if their only definition of BVOM is financial ROI, Scaillet said. "The
pursuit of ROI might be too complicated. The true issue here is measurement,"
he said.
Although some companies, especially those with historical
expense data handy, have deployed "sophisticated means for measuring,
reporting and implementing comprehensive, ROI-centric BVOM strategies,"
according to the report, most are content only to "assume meetings bring
positive value."
Why So Important?
That so few effectively measure BVOM begs the question of
whether doing so truly is necessary. Scaillet noted that, as a business tool,
meetings and events are not the only option companies have to communicate a
message, so their relative value must be measured to determine their impact.
"Companies have different ways to spend money in terms
of marketing and communications," Scaillet said. "They could spend on
advertising, and that industry has been really good with [value metrics]. Other
communications industries have defined pretty clearly the impact you're going
to generate. Unfortunately, our industry has not been really good at saying
that as a result of attending a meeting, this is the behavioral change you're
going to generate."
Measuring such behavioral change, despite an inherently
qualitative component, need not be daunting, Scaillet said. "It can be
done. There are a number of measurements you can go by and quantify," he
said. "Simply saying people were happy [with the meeting] as a very first
step; what kind of information they have retained; then, are they doing
anything with it?"
The report does not recommend a particular measurement or
method of analysis to use, but MPI does plan to create a "toolkit" of
"time-tested and proven sources for BVOM measurement," including
internal sales reports and customer retention numbers, external levels and
market trends, "surveys that measure content recall, satisfaction and
relevance," and "focus groups that reveal key motivators, preferences
and expectations," among other resources. MPI expects to release such a
report within a year, Scaillet said.
Procurement's Stake
One approach Scaillet cautioned against was measuring BVOM
by financial metrics alone, though he noted the "essential role"
procurement philosophies play in vendor selection and risk management.
"If you take a strictly procurement approach—I spend
$1, and I'll get $1.15 back in six months—that's a very hard approach to take
to what meetings and events do," Scaillet said. "You might get zero
after six months, or $1.40 after four months. What you're trying to do is
create an experience and an emotional connection with your brand. I'm a firm
believer that procurement has a huge stake in the game, but I would argue from
an output standpoint that there are a number of stakeholders beyond the
procurement department."
Originally published in the August 2011 issue of Travel
Procurement.