jcudev_012613

7/28/2019 jcudev_012613

1/10

10 THE J OURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vol. 7, No. 1, MAY '96

ConventionCities - Images

and ChangingFortunes

Martin Oppermann

Introduction

The conventions and meetings industry is rapidly emerging asone of the most important sectors not only within business travel butalso in the whole tourism industry. In recognition of its importance,conference centres and congress halls are built around the world not

only in the major cities and capitals but increasingly in secondary andtertiary cities and resort areas. For example, it has been estimatedthat there are 434 convention centres in the United States alone(Fenich, 1992) and more than 300 congress and convention halls andsome 600 cities equipped with conference facilities in Germany(Meetings & Conventions, 1993). Existing facilities are expanded sothat a destination remains competitive with respect to availableexhibit space (Ghitelman, 1995).

International conventions have shown a rapid growth of 101.5%between 1982 and 1993 (LaBasse, 1984; Rockett & Smillie, 1994),outpacing the worldwide growth in tourist arrivals of 72.8% duringthe same time period (WTO, 1994). Auckland, Sydney, Hong Kong,Seoul, Singapore, Kuala Lumpur, Manila, Mexico City, and Acapulcoare but a few examples of convention destinations attempting tocapture a larger share of the convention business. Yet, why do allthese destinations want more convention business and why areconvention centres built although it is a well recognised fact thatmany if not the majority are operating at a loss (Major, 1993; McGee,1993; Wiesendanger, 1995)? One reason is that convention centres areimportant to attract the larger conventions and the high spendingdelegates to a destination. It is usually assumed by the city that anylosses incurred by the convention centre are more than recuperatedthrough the spending of the attendees throughout the city onaccommodation, transportation and food establishments resulting in

increased tax revenues (Fenich, 1992). Convention Centres typicallygauge success by room nights generated in area hotels, bed tax

AbstractThi s paper analyses theinternati onal development ofconvention touri sm andreveals the changing fortuneof conventi on cities over thelast decades. Based on

primary data from a survey ofmeeting planners, it i s shownthat service, cost, image,location, and facilities arethe main underl ying factorsin the planners decisionmaking process. An analysisof convention destinati onimages of 30 North Americancities evidences considerableimage di fferences among thedestinations. Furthermore,planners with previous

experience with a specific citygenerally have a morefavourable perception of thatdestination.

Dr. Martin Oppermann is SeniorLecturer in TourismManagement, ManagementDevelopment Centre, WaiarikiPolytechnic, Rotorua, NewZealand.

7/28/2019 jcudev_012613

2/10

revenues or facility occupancyrates, rather than by revenue orprofit" (Wiesendanger, 1995, p.14). In the United States, it isestimated that conventionattendees infuse an estimatedUS$1,287 per convention into thelocal economy. In addition,conference organisers spendanother U S$100-140,000 permeeting on site for food andbeverages, space rental, etc.(Edelstein & Benini, 1994). InNew Zealand, conferencedelegates spend NZ$300 per dayor almost three times more thanthe NZ$111 of the average tourist(NZTN , 1995). Obviously, thesefigures are estimated averagesonly and, dependent on theindividual and the conferencesize, may vary considerably

among individuals andconventions.

Other reasons are the seasonalityand exposure factors. Whilespecial events or hallmark eventssuch as the Olympic Games maybring a huge influx of visitors in ashort period of time, conventionsprovide for a more year-rounddemand and especially during theoff or shoulder seasons (Abbey &L ink, 1994; NZTN , 1995).

Further, this form of groupbusiness provides for an exposureto many participants who mayvery well turn into repeat visitorsprovided they leave with afavourable impression.

Despite its worldwide impor-tance, the convention industryhas been a largely neglected areaof tourism research as severalauthors have stated in recentreviews of the field (e.g., Abbey &

Link, 1994; Oppermann, 1994;Zelinsky, 1994). This paper aimsto provide an overview of thedevelopment of conventiontourism over the last four decadesand trace changes in theinternational distribution patternof convention sites over the sametime period. Based on a survey ofassociation meeting planners, itdiscusses images of N orthAmerican convention destinationswith a special emphasis on theeffect of previous experience on

the side of the meeting planneron their perceptions.

Convention tourism

The attentive reader has alreadynoted that different terms areused to denote the same orsimilar thing. Convention,congress, and conference all fallwithin the same category withdifferences in usage and meaningon an international level. Lawson(1980, p. 188) suggested that:

Congresses are usuallygeneral sessions, mostl yinformation gi ving and thecommonly accepted traditionalform of full-membershipmeeting.

Conventions is a term widelyused in North America and thePacific region to describe majoror total-membership meetings.

Conferences are usuallygeneral sessions and face-to-face groups with a highparticipation, primarilyconcerned with planning,obtaining facts andinformation, or solvingorganisational and operational

problems.

Yet wi th in a full -membershi pmeeting, gatheri ngs of groupsdiscussing special topics arecommon qualifying for the moreface-to-face definition of con-ferences. Since the present paperdiscusses this industry first froman international perspective andthe from a more North Americanpoint of view, all three terms arehenceforth used as synonyms.

M ost commonly conventi ontourism is associated withbusiness tourism highlighting itsbusiness aspects rather than itsleisure, educational or otheraspects. H owever, businessaspects are only part of themotivational factors of conventionattendees and especially withinthe professional associationconvention arena other variablesappear to be of greaterimportance (Grant, 1994; Price,

1993). Hence, differences arenotable within the conventionindustry and usually two mainsectors are identified: corporateand association meetings (Chon,1991). T he former is the morebusiness oriented sector and, asin other business travel, placeand time are mostly determinedby business interests and theindividual traveller has usuallyl it tl e influence on these. I naddition, the corporate conferenceattendee generally has all her/hisexpenses paid. On the other hand,association conferences and thedecision process of the associationconference attendees resemblemore the pleasure travel segmentof the tourism industry.Participants attend at their ownleisure, can decide which

conference they want to attendand what times or places theyprefer or disli ke. Further, theyoften pay at least part of theirway if not all their expenses.

Commonly educational motivesare also a major factor in bothcorporate and associationconferences. Sales managers areinformed of new products,marketing directors of newstrategies, professors want to

learn the latest advances in theirfield, agricultural associationswant to inform their members ofcurrent developments ingovernment policy, etc. Anothermotive might be the reunion withfriends or professional colleagues.

Histori cal development

Currently, conventions andmeetings induce several hundredmillion person trips each year,

constituting one of the largestsegments within the tourismindustry (USTDC, 1993). Despitethe large numbers involved andtheir high spending very littleinformation exists on thisindustry. Many countri es anddestinations that receive far lessvisitors have a much betterdocumentation of their tourismindustry. One of the reasons whyso little research has focused onthis industry is this dearth of acomprehensive documentation.

THE J OURNAL OF TOURI SM STUDIES Vol. 7, No. 1, MAY '96 11

7/28/2019 jcudev_012613

3/10


The only consi stent data isprovided by the Union ofInternational Associations (UIA)which reports internationalconferences in its membercountries and destinations.However, even these statisticsare only as good as the dataprovided by the respectiveorganisation. Rockett andSmillie (1994) lamented the lack

of more detailed data in Europeand suggested that NorthAmerica is the most advancedwith respect to its recognition ofthis industry and its datacollection. However, as Zelinsky(1994) noted in his analysis of theU.S. meetings industry, some ofthe existing data banks are alsonot very reliable and he discloseda serious underreporting ofconferences by the destinations.

Thus, one should treat any data

available with the necessarycaution.

I nternational distribution

The examination of internationalconferences based on the UI Adata suggests the growingimportance of the conventionindustry. I t also reveals achanging trend with regard toprimary and secondary countriesand/or destinations. Table 1

presents a summary of thedevelopment over the last 40years by world region. Europe isthe region with the largest shareof i nternati onal conferences.However, its share has beencontinuously declining from 74%in 1954 to 60% in 1993. Themajor beneficiary of this declineapparently has been Asia whoseshare more than tripled from 4%to 13% in the same time period.

The changing prominence of

country level only WashingtonD.C. was among the top 10destinations during the last fewyears. One reason for the strongshowing of the USA on countrylevel is that it has several venuesthat attract international conven-tions albeit not in very largenumbers. The United K ingdom,on the other hand, is mostlyrepresented by London. I n thecase of France, Strasbourg wasalso ranked among the top 15convention cities besides Paris,mostly by virtue of being one ofthe seats of the European Union.

The changing for tune ofconvention cities is apparent. Theonce primary destination New

York dropped from 6th rank(1954) to 8th (1968) and 13th

(1990) and was not even amongthe top 15 in 1992. Hence, whilesome destinations weresuccessful in maintaining or evenimproving their position, otherslost in relative importance.Notable is the emergence ofAsian conference destinations onthe international congress arena.Especially Singapore appears tobe very successful and has beenamong the top 10 since 1988.

The already mentioned special orhallmark events have not only apositive influence on the countrylevel but also apparently improvethe potential of the specificdestination to attract inter-national conventions. Seoul(Olympic Games 1988) andBarcelona (1992 Olympics) aretwo good examples. Only in 1988Seoul was ranked among the top

individual countries on theinternational level is portrayed inTable 2. A lthough the topcountr ies remained vi rtuallyunchanged from 1982 to 1992, itis among the lower ranks whereconsiderable fluctuations occurfrom year to year. Special orhallmark events such as theOlympic Games in Spain (1992)or the World Expo in Australia

(1988) appear to exert a positiveinfluence on the number ofconventions held in the samecountry. Consequently thecountry attains a higher positionin the hierarchy.

The strong E ur opean re-presentation among the top 10countries for internationalconventions mirrors its positionin the whole tourism industry.The proximity of most European

countries to each other and thestrong interrelationships betweenthem results in many Europeanorganisations and consequentlyinternational conferences.

On a destination level, Paris andLondon are the primary locationsfor international congresses(Table 3). Although the UnitedStates hold the first rank on

Table 1: International Congresses by Continent, 1954-1993.Continent 1954 in % 1968 in % 1982 in % 1993 in %Africa 27 3 92 3 148 3 446 5Americas 197 19 497 18 822 19 1,802 20Asia 40 4 212 8 470 11 1,138 13Australia-Oceania 6 1 29 1 110 3 162 2Europe 788 74 1,898 70 2,826 65 5,269 60World 1,058 100 2,728 100 4,376 100 8,817 100

Sources: Alkjaer 1970; LaBasse 1984; Rockett and Smillie 1994.

Table 2: Top ten countries for international conventions, selected years 1982 -1992.1982 1986 1988 1990 1992

USA USA USA USA USAFrance France UK France FranceUK UK France UK UK Switzerland W.-Germany W.-Germany Germany GermanyBelgium Switzerland Italy Netherlands SpainW.-Germany Spain Australia Italy NetherlandsItaly Italy Netherlands Switzerland ItalyAustria Netherlands Switzerland Belgium BelgiumNetherlands Belgium Belgium Spain SwitzerlandDenmark Canada Spain J apan J apan

Sources: LaBasse 1984; Smith 1989; Rockett and Smillie 1994.

7/28/2019 jcudev_012613

4/10


15 destinations and Barcelona

managed to penetrate the top 10only in 1992.

The shift ing pattern ofconvention fortunes is not onlynotable on international level butalso within a country. Zelinsky(1994) illustrated how the spatialdistribution of the U.S.conventi on industry changedbetween 1964/65 and 1990/91.

The increasing number ofsecondary destination with

adequate convention facilitiescontributed towards a lesserconcentration of the industry in afew destinations. Overall, in thiscase, there was an obvious shiftfrom the Northeast towards theSunbelt states. Although thisshift mirrors a more generalpopulation shift, Zelinsky alsodemonstrated that populationsize and/or population hinterlandis not influencing the position ofa given city on the convention

destination hierarchy. One pointin case is Las Vegas which hadless than one million inhabitantsand a population hinterland ofvirtually zero within severalhundred kilometers. But, in1990/91, it was fourth rankedwith respect to estimated numberof conference participants ascompared to its 65th rank withrespect to population size(Zelinsky, 1994, p. 73). Some of

the major negative rank changesin the analysed period occurred

to Atlantic City (-37 ranks),

Miami (-23), Philadelphia (-19),Pittsburgh (-19), and New York (-9). Some of the listed majorbenefactor s were Las Vegas(+16), New Orleans (+14), SanAntonio (+12), and Seattle (+11).

What contributed to theseconsiderable changes? While theadequacy of physical facilitiessuch as meeting and hotel roomsand accessibility are undoubtedlyamong the major factors, the

convention destination image islikely to play a major role too.

But overarching all of thesefactors and influences isanother great, pervasivevariable: the reputation orimage of a potential conventionsite.... Perception is whatmatters, and it mattersmightily (Zelinsky, 1994, p.75).

Yet, convention desti nat ion

images has been an almostcompletely neglected area ofinquiry.

Destination image andprevious experience

Destination images haveattracted considerable interestwithin tourism research. Hunts(1975) seminal article on imagesof four North American states

prompted several studies on thattopic and eventually several

destination selection process and

image formation models havebeen proposed and discussed(e.g., Chon, 1990; Crompton,1979; Gartner, 1993; Woodside &L ysonski , 1989; Woodside &Sherrell, 1977). Echtner andRitchies (1991, 1993) reviews ofdestination image studiesindicate that images of states orcountries was the main focuswhile city images have beenlargely ignored. Yet, over the lastfew years, the importance of

urban image has beenhighlighted (e.g., Ashworth &Voogd, 1990; K otler, Haider &Rein, 1993; Law, 1993). Anotheremerging topic is urban re-imaging (e.g., K earsley, 1994).Nevertheless, comparativestudies of city images appear tobe still lacking. A dearth ofpublications on conventiondestination image studies hasalso been noted (Oppermann,1994). Despite some early

interest in this field (e.g., Alkjaer,1976) only few others havefollowed. Most of these usedislands as basis of inquiry ratherthan individual cities (e.g., Bonn,Ohlin, & Brand, 1994).

The infl uence of previousexperience on the decisionprocess and the destinationimage has been recognised (e.g.,Mazursky, 1989; Watson,

Roggenbuck, & Williams, 1991).I n most touri sm destination

Table 3: Top 15 cities for international congresses, selected years 1954-1992.

1954 1968 1982 1988 1990 1992

Paris Paris Paris Paris Paris ParisGeneva Geneva London London London LondonLondon London Geneva Madrid Brussels BrusselsRome Brussels Brussels Brussels Vienna ViennaBrussels Strasbourg Vienna Geneva Geneva MadridNew York Vienna New York W. Berlin Berlin GenevaVienna Rome Copenhagen Rome Madrid AmsterdamAmsterdam New York Rome Sydney Singapore SingaporeCopenhagen Mexico City Tokyo Singapore Amsterdam WashingtonThe Hague W. Berlin Strasbourg Washington Washington BarcelonaMunich Tokyo W. Berlin Vienna Strasbourg CopenhagenZurich Prague Hong Kong New York Rome StrasbourgStockholm Washington Washington Strasbourg New York Hong KongLiege Madrid Dublin Amsterdam Copenhagen BudapestWashington Copenhagen Singapore Seoul The Hague Prague

Sources: Alkjaer 1970; LaBasse 1984; Smith 1991, Rockett and Smillie 1994.

7/28/2019 jcudev_012613

5/10


results by Fortin et al. ( 1 9 7 6 ) ,ASAE (1992), and Edelstein andBenini (1994).

The thi rd section included anevaluation of 30 North Americanconference destinations on a scalefrom one to fi fteen. F urt her ,respondents were asked toindicate any previous visits to thesame destinations. Since thisstudy could possibly not includeall locations with conferencefacilities, the study included themajor convention cities in theUnited States and Canadaaccording to Zelinskys (1994)results. I n additi on, severalsecondary destinations wereidentified from trade journalarticles dealing with that topic(e.g., Buchbinder, 1994; Czarny-

L eone, 1989; E lwood, 1992;Teibel, 1994) and included in thelist such as to complement theprimary destinations and to givea relatively wide geographicalspread across the United Statesand Canada.

The instrument was pre-tested ata meeting planner conferenceand, after a slight modification,mailed to 600 randomly selectedactive members (meeting

planners) of the P rofessionalConvention ManagementAssociation (PCMA). Owing tofinancial constraints, only onemailing was used. At the cut-offdata three weeks after themailing some 123 questionnairesor 20.5% were returned. This iscomparable with previous one-time mailing response rates instudies of meeting planners (e.g.,Bonn et al., 1994). Theinundation of meeting planners

with questionnaires in recentyears partially explains the lowresponse rates. Threeprofessional organisations surveymeeting planners almost everyyear and the meeting plannersmight just have too much anddiscard the questionnaireswithout much regret. Thisresearcher offered to send therespondents a summary of theresults. Some 25% took up onthis offer indicating that it was avaluable incentive. F uture

decision models previousexperience flows in as amodifying variable in the decisionprocess (e.g., Chon, 1990;Gartner, 1993). However, littlerigorous examinations havefocused on the extent to whichprevious experience actuallymodifies or changes the imageowing to a general lack oflongitudinal tourism studies. I nmost cases, repeat and first timevisitors are compared with eachother and the emergingdifferences are bona fide taken asthe modifying influence of aprevious visit on the image (e.g.,F akeye & Crompton, 1991;Gitelson & Crompton, 1984; Gyte& Phelps, 1989).

To the knowledge of this author,

there is no published research onthe importance of previous

experience on city or destination

images and, therefore, nofoundation the present researchcould be based upon.

Research approach

A survey instrument wasdeveloped with three mainsections for the purpose of thisstudy: F ir st, the respondentswere asked some generalmeeting planner attributes, suchas years of meeting planning

experience, number and size ofmeetings planned per year, sizeof the largest meeting, andinstrumentality in selectingdestinations and conference sites.

Second, the respondents weregiven a list of 15 decision criteriaand asked to indicate theirimportance in the destinationselection process. Responses weremeasured on a seven-point L ikertscale. The attributes selectedwere based on prior research

A survey of meeting planners examinedbackgrounds, decision cri teria and an evaluation of30 North American conference destinations.

7/28/2019 jcudev_012613

6/10


were selected based on theirrelevance in previous studies andthe respondents were asked torate the importance of these intheir planning decision processfor meetings and conventions.

Of the 15 given attributes, therespondents placed mostimportance on meeting roomfacilities and hotel service qualityin planning a conference (Table4). Other important attr ibutes

were hotel room availability,safety/security, and the clean-liness/attractiveness of thedestination. The least importantvariables were nightlife, climateand scenery/sightseeingopportunit ies. This comparesfavourably with previousresearch results. In the ASAE(1992) study, for example, qualityof service, meeting roomfacilities, overall affordability,sleeping room facilities and

location image emerged as thetop 5 decision attributes.

A factor analysis of the mainunderlying trends reveals fivefactors with eigenvalue valuesgreater than 1. Together theyexplain 66.6% of the variance. Avarimax rotation of the factormatrix resulted in the factorloadings given in Table 4. Thefactors were named s e rv i c e, cos t,i m a g e, l o c a t i o n, and f a c i l i t i e s.The image-factor, for example,

conference market and othercongresses and exhibitions areeven larger. Some 65% hadplanned at least one conventionwith attendance exceeding 1,000.

The importance of the meetingplanners with respect todestination choice was revealedwhen 79% mentioned that theirresponsibilities include selectionof the conference destination.However, no attempt was made

to ascertain the degree ofinfluence on the decision process.Usually several people in theorganisation are involved anddepending on the structure andthe influence of the CEO meetingplanners may have full or hardlyany influence. Nonetheless, ithighlights the relevance ofknowing meeting plannersconvention destination imagessuch as to design marketingstrategies according to the

strengths and weaknessesperceived.

Importance of DestinationAttributes

A literature analysis of previousinquiries into importance ofconvention destination attributesyielded a whole range of differentvariables (e.g., ASAE, 1992;Edelstein & Benini, 1994; Fortinet al., 1976). For the purpose ofthis study, however, 15 attributes

research attempts may need torevert to other medium such asfax or e-mail surveys in hope toimprove the response rate.

Meeting planner's perspective

The majority of respondents werebetween 26 and 45 years of age(56%) and 37% were between 46and 65 years of age. The majoritywere female (68%), hold abaccalaureate (59%) or masters

degree (15%), and earned US$30-59,999 per year (56%). Manyrespondents were from theWashington D.C. area (24%) andIllinois (15%) where incidentallymost associations headquartersare located. I n total, therespondents resided in 30different states.

Most respondents meetingplanning career was less than 10years (54%) with an emphasis on

five to ten years (39%). Some hadbeen in the meeting planningbusiness for more than 30 yearsand 15% for at least 20 years.

The average number ofconventions/meetings plannedwas 26, ranging from just one tomore than 300. The largestconvention organised by anyrespondent attracted about56,000 participants while thesmallest meeting draw anattendance of just 25. Thisindicates the width of the

Table 4: Planners decision attributes and factor scores.Attribute Mean Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5

score Service Cost Image Location Faci l i ties

Meeting rooms/facilities 6.6 0.41 0.30 -0.43 0.22 0.32Hotel service quality 6.6 0.81 0.08 0.02 0.06 0.00Hotel room availability 6.4 0.37 0.15 -0.28 0.59 0.33Clean/attractive location 6.3 0.68 0.20 0.29 0.06 -0.00Safety/security 6.3 0.63 0.41 0.02 0.09 -0.07Ease of air transportation access 6.2 0.06 0.46 0.01 0.71 -0.06Food & lodging costs 6.1 0.12 0.82 -0.11 0.05 -0.12Overall affordability 6.1 0.14 0.74 0.21 0.03 0.06City image 5.8 0.13 0.18 0.70 0.06 0.19

Transportation costs 5.5 0.17 0.76 0.06 0.16 0.32Restaurant facilities 5.4 0.60 -0.10 0.25 0.50 0.16Exhibition facilities 5.1 -0.03 0.05 0.03 -0.01 0.94Scenery/sightseeing opportunities 4.9 0.19 0.03 0.79 0.05 -0.09Climate 4.7 -0.15 -0.12 0.59 0.59 -0.14Nightlife 4.0 0.21 0.01 0.39 0.49 -0.03Variance explained: 66.6% n/a 27.5% 14.8% 9.2% 7.9% 7.2%

Note: Attributes with a loading of 0.50 or higher are highlighted.

7/28/2019 jcudev_012613

7/10


Table 5:Convention Destination Image.Desti nati on Over all wi th pr evi ous wi thout pr evi ous si gni fi cance

Mean experience experience level

San Diego 12.5 12.6 12.1 .54San Francisco 11.8 12.1 9.0 .02New Orleans 11.4 12.0 7.9 .01Orlando 11.4 11.8 7.2 .01Washington DC 10.6 10.7 9.3 .32Chicago 10.4 10.5 7.0 .14Boston 10.4 10.8 5.9 .01

San Antonio 10.1 11.4 7.4 .01Seattle 9.9 10.8 7.4 .01Atlanta 9.7 9.8 8.0 .44Toronto 9.5 9.7 8.9 .36Vancouver 9.5 12.0 8.0 .01Phoenix 9.2 10.1 7.3 .01Dallas 8.8 8.8 8.8 .98Denver 8.7 9.1 7.5 .06Honolulu 8.2 8.7 7.2 .16Las Vegas 8.1 10.3 4.7 .01Montreal 8.0 8.6 7.5 .18Philadelphia 7.7 8.9 5.3 .01Nashville 7.7 8.5 5.8 .01New York 6.4 7.0 3.5 .01

St. Louis 6.3 6.4 5.9 .57Salt Lake City 6.1 7.1 5.3 .02Houston 5.8 5.8 5.8 .94Los Angeles 5.8 5.9 4.8 .36Portland, OR 5.8 6.8 5.4 .06Quebec City 5.6 6.0 5.5 .64Miami 5.6 5.9 4.9 .28Calgary 4.9 6.4 4.6 .09Atlantic City 3.2 3.2 3.2 .94

Note: Mean scores from scaling of destinations on a scale from 1 to 15.Underlined significance level denote significant difference below the .05level.

had high loadings ofcity image,scenery/ sightseeing opportunities,and climate. The cost-factor hadhigh loadings in all three costvariables, namely food & lodgingc o s t s, transportation costs, andoverall affordability. Althoughimage emerged only as one of thefive factors, many of the othervariables are usually con-tributing to the overall image of adestination as a convention city.

Destination images

As elaborated above, 30 citieswere included in the study basedon previous publicationsregarding the importance ofconventi on destinations. SanDiego (12.5) achieved the highestaverage score on a fifteen point

scale. I t was followed by SanFrancisco, New Orleans andOrlando, Washington D.C.,Seattle, Chicago, and Boston. Onthe other end of the scale wereAtlantic City, Calgary, Miami,and Quebec City (Table 5). Therelative poor performance ofCalgary and Quebec City may bepartially attributed to the factthat many US-organisationscannot hold conferences inCanada. For this reason some

respondents gave Canadiandestinations very low scores.

M iamis and L os Angeles poorimages are recognised facts andmostly based on violence andother negative publicity of eventsthat appeared in the national andinternational press. In a meetingplanner survey on the perceivedsafety of desti nations, L osAngeles (3rd) and Miami (2nd)were considered the most

dangerous destinations behindNew York (Beta Research, 1994).Los Angeles is actively trying tocounteract the negative presscoverage in the wake of riots,earthquakes and tourist killingsand to place Los Angeles back onthe map as a top destination formeetings and conventions(Klayman, 1995).

At lantic Ci ty, once one of themost prestigious destinations andthe foremost convention city in

the late 19th century is still notnicely looked upon despite itssuccessful reinvention as agaming destination in the 1970s.Recently a new convention centreis being built to remaincompetitive with otherdestinations. Y et, there is aperception from years ago thatAtlantic City is crumbling(Lucas, 1994).

Table 5 al so contrasts thedestination image results ofmeeting planners with andwithout previous experience withthe individual city. I t indicatesthe generally higher and morefavourable scores amongplanners with previousexperience. Exceptions areDallas, Houston and AtlanticCity where perceptions arealmost identical.

Using the t-test analysis for two

samples it shows that many ofthese differences are significant.Hence, it appears as if previousexperience has a considerableinfluence on the citys image asperceived by meeting planners.

Those destinations that are likelyto improve their image byexposing planners to the city arewell advised to invest some morepromotional budget forfamiliarisation trips rather than

general advertising. However, asa discussion at the 1995 PCMAConference on the topic offamiliarisation trips suggests itbecomes more and moreimportant to show the plannersthe essence of the destinationswithin a limited time becausemeeting planners are busy anddo not want to waste their time.

Another point made during thesame discussion was that manymeeting planners prefer working

7/28/2019 jcudev_012613

8/10


with the same hotel contactpersons with whom they hadfavourable past experiences.Since meeting planners areevaluated on the success of theconferences but have only verylimited influence on most factorsinvolved (i.e., food quality, hotelservice quality), they dependhighly on their counterparts inthe hotel to ensure a smoothconvention. However, many hotelsales and convention people aremore interested in securing thenext contract as they areevaluated on the amount ofbusiness they procure. Thus,meeting planners prefer to workwith those hotels whosepersonnel are involved through-out the whole planning processand the convention itself.

Another reason why previousexperience may bias meetingplanners perceptions ofconvention destination is theirfamiliarity with the city or resort.

This enables them to reduce theirplanning time as they do notneed to obtain information on thehotel and/or destination forplanning of excursionprogrammes, activities andattractions available, etc.

Considering that on average therespondents were involved in theorganisation of 26 conferencesper year, any time saved is aplus.

Conclusion

More and more countries anddestinations recognise theimportance and value of theconvention industry. High percapita expenditures and exposure

to large groups are but twofactors in favour of conventiontourism. I n N ew Zealand, forexample, even customs procedureare made easier for conventiondelegates (NZTN, 1995)indicating the value that isplaced upon these travellers andthe recognition that a favourableimpression on the delegatesstarts with them setting feet intothe destination and that word-of-mouth is an invaluablemarketing tool.

Although it is ultimately up tothe individual (potential)attendee to decide on attending aspecific conference in a specificdestination, for the destination itis crucial to attract as manyconferences as possible so as toincrease the potential number ofattendees. Hence, for des-tinations it is important tobecome part of the initialdestination set of the conferenceorganisers and, therefore, of themeeting planners. Thus, adestination needs to be not onlyattractive to potential delegatesbut also to the meeting plannersand decision makers. This studyshowed that the destinationimage and several otherattributes are importantvariables in that decision process.

Furthermore, meeting plannerswith previous experience oftenhave a significantly betterperception of conferencedestinations than those withoutprevious experience. Familiari-sation trips could, therefore, bean excellent way to improve adestination perception amongmeeting planners and con-sequently better its competitiveposition.

Within the domain of conventiondestination images several itemscan be identified for a futureresearch agenda. First, to whatextent do different destinationperceptions translate intodifferent demand for these

destinations? Second, doconvention destination images ofthe ultimate customer, theconvention delegates, correspondto the perceptions held bymeeting planners and are thelatter aware of possibledissimilarities? Third, howimportant are conventiondelegates' perceptions ofdestinations in the participation-decision making process to attenda specific conference. Morestudies are also needed on thewider complex of conventiontourism, the decision maker andbuying processes withinorganisations, and the decisionmaking process of organisers andattendees.

Convention destinations

themselves are likely to beinterested in their competit ivepositioning with respect to thevarious attributes involved.Multi-dimensional scalingtechniques or contours ofconvention images across thefactors could be used. A simplermethod could be an importance-performance analysis of all theimage attributes involved. Thiswill yield areas which adestination may want to

emphasise in its promotionalefforts and attributes thatrequire more work to bring themup to meeting plannersexpectations. To reiterateZelinsky, conventions constitute arich, but fallow, field for research(1994, p. 71).

ReferencesAbbey, J .R., & Link, C.K . (1994). The convention and meetings sector

- I ts operation and research needs. In J .R.B. Ritchie & C.R.Goeldner (Eds.),Travel, tourism, and hospitality research (2nded.) (pp. 273-284). New York: J ohn Wiley & Sons.

Alk jaer, E. (1970). Character and problems of congress tourism.Publications de lAIEST, 10, 7-19.

Alkjaer, E. (1976). Images and realities in congress tourism. J ournalof Travel Research, 14(4), 14-15.

Amer ican Society of Associat ion Executi ves [ASAE ] (1992).Association meeting trends 1992. Washington: ASAE.

7/28/2019 jcudev_012613

9/10


Ashworth, G., & Voogd, H. (1990). Selling the city: Marketingapproaches in public sector urban planning. London: BelhavenPress.

Beta Research (1994). Reader poll on safety. Meeting News, J uly, 6.Bonn, M.A., Ohlin, J .B., & Brand, R.R. (1994). Quality service issues:

A multivariate analysis of association meeting plannerperceptions of Caribbean destinations. Hospitality Research

J ournal, 18(1), 29-48.Buchbinder, S. (1994). Second-tier advantage. Association Meetings,

6(3), 29-36.Chon, K .-S. (1990). The role of destination image in tourism: A

review and discussion. Tourist Review, 45(2), 2-9.Chon, K.-S. (1991). Meetings management and hospitali ty/ tourism

i n d u s t r y . Aix-en-Provence: Centre des Hautes EtudesTouristiques.

Crompton, J .L . (1979). An assessment of the image of Mexico as avacation destination and the influence of geographical locationupon that image. J ournal of Travel Research, 17, 18-23.

C z a r n y-L eone, C. (1989). Second-tier cities offer value, expandedfacilities. Association Meetings, 1(2), 22-23.

E chtner, C.M ., & Rit chie, J .R.B . (1991). The meaning andmeasurement of destination image. J ournal of Tourism

Studies, 2(2), 2-12.Echtner, C.M ., & Ritchie, J .R.B. (1993). The measurement ofdestination image: An empirical assessment. J ournal of TravelResearch, 31(4), 3-13.

Edelstein, L.G., & Benini, C. (1994). Meetings market report 1994.Meetings & Convention (August), 60-82.

Elwood, P. (1992). Second to none. Second-tier cities set out to divideand conquer the association meetings market. A s s o c i a t i o nMeetings, 4(4), 19-25.

Fakeye, P.C., & Crompton, J .L. (1991). Image differences betweenprospective, fir st-time, and repeat visitors to the Lower RioGrande Valley. J ournal of Travel Research, 30(2), 10-15.

Fenich, G.G. (1992). Convention centre development: Pros, cons and

unanswered questions. International J ournal of Hospitali tyManagement, 11, 183-196.

Fortin, P.A., Ritchie, J .R.B., & Arsenault, J . (1976). A study of thedecision process of North American associations concerning thechoice of a convention site. Quebec City: Laval University.

Gartner, W.C. (1993). Image formation process. J ournal of Travel &Tourism Marketing, 2(2/3), 191-216.

Gitelson, R.J ., & Crompton, J .L. (1984). Insights into the repeatvacation phenomenon. Annals of Tourism Research, 11,199-217.

Ghitelman, D. (1995). Conventi on centre development: Neverenough? Meetings & Conventions (February), 48-58.

Grant, Y.N.J . (1994). Factors that contribute to the selection process

of meetings from the perspective of the attendee. 1994 AnnualCHRIE Conference, J uly 27-30, 1994 (Poster).

Gyte, D.M., & Phelps, A. (1 9 8 9). Patterns of desti nation repeatbusiness: British tourists in Mallorca, Spain. J ournal of TravelResearch, 28(1), 24-28.

Hunt, J .D. (1975). Image as a factor in tourism development.J ournalof Travel Research, 13(3), 1-7.

Kearsley, G.W. (1994). The successful secret: Urban re-imaging andquality tourism development in Dunedin, New Zealand. In J .Cheyne & C. Ryan (Eds.), Tourism down under: A tourismresearch conference. Palmerston N orth: Department ofManagement Systems, Massey University.

Klayman, G. (1995). LA fights back. Meetings Cali fornia, 9(1), 1, 10-12.

7/28/2019 jcudev_012613

10/10


Kotler, P., Haider, D.H., & Rein, I . (1993). Marketing places. NewYork: The Free Press.

L aBasse, J . (1984). L es congrs, acti vit terti aire de vil lesprivilgies. Annales de gographie, 93(520), 688-703.

Law, C.M. (1993). Urban tourism. Attracting visitors to large cities.London: Mansell.

Lawson, F.R. (1980). Congresses, conventions, and conferences:Facility supply and demand. Tourism Management, 1, 184-188.

Lucas, E . (1994). Reinventing Atlanti c City - again. AssociationMeetings, 6(5), 34-37.

Major, M.J . (1993). The convention centre evolution. The MeetingManager, 15(2), 36-40.

Mazursky, D. (1989). Past experience and future tourism decisions.Annals of Tourism Research, 16, 333-344.

McGee, R. (1993). Convention centers: Bright hope or big hoax forAmericas cities? Association Meetings, 5(4), 20-24.

Meetings & Conventions (1993). The global planner. Annualinternational meeting guide. Meetings & Conventions, Maysupplement.

New Zealand Tourism News [NZTN] (1995). Str ong growth inconferences. New Zealand Tourism News, April 1995.

Oppermann, M. (1994). Modeling convention location choice and

participation decision making process. Aix-en-Provence: Centredes Hautes Etudes Touristiques.Price, C. (1993). An empirical study of the value of professional

associati on meeti ngs fr om the perspective of attendees.Di ssertation, Vi rgini a Polytechni c I nstitute and StateUniversity.

Rockett, G., & Smill ie, G. (1994). The European conference andMeetings market. EIU Travel & Tourism Analyst, No.4, 36-50.

Smith, G. (1989). The European conference market. EIU Travel &Tourism Analyst, No.4, 60-76.

Smith, G. (1991). Professional organisations in the Europeanmeetings industry. I nternational J ournal of HospitalityManagement, 10, 119-126.

Teibel, A. (1994). The pros and cons of second-tier cities. Convene,9(1), 32-37.

U.S. Travel Data Centre [USTDC] (1993). 1991 Survey of businesstravelers. Washington, D.C.: USTDC.

Watson, A.E., Roggenbuck, J .W., & Willi ams, D.R. (1991). Theinfluence of past experience on wilderness choice. J ournal ofLeisure Research, 23, 21-36.

Wiesendanger, B. (1995). Convention centers feeling financial heat.Meeting News, 19(3), 14, 21.

Woodside, A.G., & Lysonski, S. (1989). A general model of travellerdestination choice. J ournal of Travel Research, 17(4), 8-14.

Woodside, A.G., & Sherrell , D. (1977). Traveler evoked, inept andinert sets of vacation destinations. J ournal of Travel Research,

6(1), 14-18.World Tourism Organisation [WTO] (1994). Yearbook of tourism

statistics. Madrid: WTO.Zelinsky, W. (1994). Conventionland USA: The geography of the

latterday. Annals of the Association of American Geographers,84, 68-86.

jcudev_012613

Documents