China MICE Buyers Report
(Chinese Meeting Planners'
Site Selection Survey)
www.cibtm.com
INTRODUCTION
This is the first Chinese Meeting Planners Site Selection Survey. It presents the findings of a recent
online survey which investigated the priorities and experiences of meeting planners based in China, in
terms of the process of choosing destinations and venues for their events.
The unique insights provided by this survey will be of considerable interest to all of those venues and
destinations in China, Asia and globally that are increasingly targeting the market for Chinese
meetings and events. The findings reveal not only the preferences of Chinese meeting planners in
terms of the types of destinations and venues that they choose for their events, but also how they wish
to interact with the sales and marketing professionals that are competing to host those events.
The findings of the Chinese Meeting Planners Site Selection Survey complement the annual IBTM
Global Meetings Industry research for China and Asia, which tracks trends in the popularity of
destinations, budgets allocated, volume of events per destination and indicators on the growth of the
meetings industry in China and Asia.
I hope that you will enjoy reading this report and that you will be able to make use of its contents in
your professional activities.
Rob Davidson
Senior Lecturer in Business Events
University of Greenwich.
R.Davidson@greenwich.ac.uk
METHODOLOGY
In the early summer of 2013, Chinese meeting planners on the CIBTM database were invited to
participate in an online survey of 16 multiple choice questions designed to indicate their priorities and
experiences when selecting destinations and venues for their events. A total of 165 responses were
received from meeting planners responsible for organising events in China as well as in overseas
destinations throughout Asia and globally.
THE SAMPLE
Almost two-thirds (65.6%) of the meeting planners who participated in the survey identified
themselves as independent meeting planners, working for a range of different types of client. The next
largest category (27%) classified themselves as corporate meeting planners. 5.5% were exclusively
involved in planning association conferences; and only 1.8% identified themselves as planners of
government meetings.
FIGURE 1
Type of Meeting Planner Surveyed
Corporate
Meetings
Planners
Government
Meetings
Planners
Independent
Meetings
Planners
Association
Meetings
Planner
In terms of the number of events organised per year by the meeting planners just under a tenth of the
sample (9.8%) reported that they planned between 1 and 3 on average – a number typical of the
association meetings sector. The fact that a high proportion of the sample, 58.3%, claimed to be
organising over 10 events per year suggests that a considerable percentage of the independent meeting
planners were involved in organising events in the corporate sector, where events are more frequent.
FIGURE 2
On average, how many meetings or other business events do you plan each year?
Answer Options
Response Percent
Response Count
Over 10
4 to 6
7 to 10
1 to 3
58.3%
19.6%
12.3%
9.8%
95
32
20
16
Regarding the average size of meetings organised by the respondents, in terms of the number of
attendees, the most frequent two responses were ‘between 51 and 100 attendees’ (29%) and ‘between
101 and 200 attendees’ (19%). This meant that just under half of all the meeting planners in the
sample typically organise events for between 51 and 200 attendees.
FIGURE 3
What is the average size of a typical meeting that you plan?
1.9% 1.9%
21 – 50 attendees
1.9%
51 – 100 attendees
5.6%
10.5%
Less than 20 attendees
15.4%
101 – 200 attendees
201 – 500 attendees
14.8%
501 – 1000 attendees
29.0%
19.1%
1001 – 2000 attendees
2001 – 5000 attendees
Over 5000 attendees
The most common duration for the meetings organised was 3 days (35.9%), and this was followed by
the category of 4-day meetings (17.3%). However, it is worthy of note that just over 30% of those
who responded reported that the average length of the meetings they organise is 5 days or more. It is
clear that these figures are higher on average than the equivalent figures for the duration of meetings
in Europe and the US, where the tendency is towards shorter meetings and where one-day meetings
are the largest single category in terms of length.
FIGURE 4
What is the average length of a typical meeting that you plan?
3.8%
17.9%
12.2%
Less than 1 day
1 day
2 days
12.8%
3 days
35.9%
17.3%
4 days
5 days
Over 5 days
In terms of the types of venue used for the meeting planners’ events, it can be seen from Figure 5 that
hotels were by far the most commonly chosen type of venue, with 81% reporting this as their
preference. Once again, this suggests that a high proportion of meeting planners in the sample were
engaged in organising corporate events, for which hotels are generally the type of venue most often
used. Convention centres represented the next most widely used type of venue, at 13.9% of the total.
The remainder of the sample favoured universities and other types of venue for the hosting of their
events.
FIGURE 5
3.8%
What type of venue do you most use for the meetings that you
organise?
1.3%
13.9%
Hotels
Convention centres
Universities
81.0%
Other (please specify)
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
In order to be effective in their sales and marketing activities, suppliers need to understand which
sources are most used by those seeking information on potential destinations and venues for their
events. Figure 6 shows that, from the overall Response Count (the numbers of respondents choosing
that option overall), the four most widely preferred sources of information on countries/cities for the
hosting of the meeting planners’ events were, in order: educational trips to the destinations;
destination marketing organisations’ websites; other meeting planners; and meetings industry
exhibitions. These were also ranked, in the same order of importance, as the meeting planners’ four
Most Important sources of information on destinations.
Those sources reported by the survey sample as being of less significance as Most Important sources
of information on destinations were: meeting industry magazines; telephoning destination marketing
organisations, intermediaries such as venue-finding agencies; and the social media. However, all of
these scored relatively highly as Second Most Important and Third Most Important sources,
suggesting that they are considered useful as supporting sources of information.
FIGURE 6
Which sources do you use to find information on destinations for your meetings?
Most
important
Educational trips (familiarisation trips) to
destinations
Destination Marketing Organisations (Convention
Bureaus / Tourist Organisations) websites
Other meeting planners (Face-to-face / email /
telephone dialogue)
Meetings industry exhibitions
Meetings industry magazines
Telephoning Destination Marketing Organisations
directly
Intermediaries such as venue-finding agencies
Social media
Third most
important
Response
Count
71
Second
most
important
29
16
116
53
47
14
114
43
55
10
108
40
21
27
49
43
36
17
26
22
106
90
85
9
8
32
29
35
37
76
74
LEAD TIMES
The survey also investigated ‘lead-times’ – the period between the time of booking the venue and the
date of the actual event – to determine how far in advance the Chinese meeting planners were booking
venues, and to what extent average lead-times were, in their experience, becoming longer or shorter.
The responses to the first question are shown in Figure 7. The most common response, from almost
half of the sample, was that venues were being booked between 1 month and 3 months ahead, on
average; and a quarter of respondents opted for the next largest category, lead-times of between 3
months and 6 months. These figures are consistent with the likely dominance of corporate meetings,
for this sample. Only 2% of the sample claimed to be booking venues more than 1 year ahead – in all
probability for the events organised by the association meeting planners in the sample.
FIGURE 7
On average, how long in advance of your meetings do you book the venue?
Response Percent
Between 1 month and 3 months ahead
Between 3 months and 6 months ahead
Between 1 week and 1 month ahead
Between 6 months and 1 year ahead
Less than 1 week ahead
Between 1 year and 2 years ahead
More than 2 years ahead
42.7%
24.7%
18.7%
10.0%
2.0%
2.0%
0.0%
In terms of the changes in lead-times perceived by the meeting planners, 50.0% of them reported that
they were experiencing lead times getting shorter; 32.7% reported that they were getting longer; and
17.3% thought that they were staying the same. The fact that the most common response of planners
was that lead-times appeared to becoming shorter is significant. Shorter lead-times can be a
consequence of the slowing of the economy that China is currently experiencing, as companies wait
longer before deciding whether or not to hold their events, safe in the knowledge that venues will be
available – and at more attractive rates – if they wait until closer to the time of the actual event before
booking. Conversely, lengthening lead-times, as for example currently being experienced in the
buoyant North American economy, can be an indication of business confidence and the emergence of
a sellers’ market.
FIGURE 8
What change do you see happening in the period between booking
the venue and the date of the actual meeting (lead times)?
32.7%
Getting shorter
50.0%
Getting longer
Staying the same
17.3%
DESTINATION AND VENUE PREFERENCES
Several questions in the survey were designed to explore the planners’ preferences in terms of what
makes destinations and venues attractive to them and how they wish to interact with suppliers’
marketing and sales professionals. Figure 9 shows the planners’ priorities regarding destinations.
FIGURE 9
When choosing a DESTINATION for your meetings, which of the following features are the
most important for you?
Features
Rating
Average
Climate
Economic stability
Visa requirements
Financial support (or in-kind support) from the destination
The professionalism of local meetings industry & hospitality industry staff
Match to business interests
Match to topics to be discussed
Easy access
Safety and security
Price
Attractiveness for tourism (interesting things to do and see)
8.48
7.96
7.54
7.10
7.08
6.38
5.99
4.22
4.22
3.77
3.25
It is somewhat surprising to note the emphasis placed upon the actual climate of destinations, and any
future research on this topic should investigate this issue further, to determine exactly why the
weather of any country or city assumes this level of importance for Chinese meeting planners –
particularly as ‘attractiveness for tourism’ was not ranked highly as a feature. One likely explanation
to be considered is the presence of incentive trips among the business events organised by those in
this sample. In the case of incentive travel, it is logical that climate is a key consideration in the choice
of destination.
Less surprising is the importance placed on financial issues, both in the sense of economic stability
(the second most important feature) and the possibility of destinations being able to offer financial or
in-kind support to meeting planners.
As might have been expected for a country such as China whose nationals require visas to visit many
overseas destinations, the visa requirements of host countries were considered to be of major
importance in the destination selection process. This feature was followed in level of importance by
the professionalism of local meetings industry and hospitality industry staff.
Figure 10 indicates the planners’ preferences in terms of the features they seek when choosing venues
for their events. It is interesting to note that only ‘proximity to airport and public transportation’ is
considered to be more important than ‘fast internet’. This echoes the results of surveys undertaken in
other world regions that have highlighted the vital importance of venues being able to offer fast and
reliable connectivity for attendees.
While ‘price’ is clearly a consideration for planners, it is clear from the table below that Chinese
meeting planners give priority to quality of facilities and services over cost.
FIGURE 10
When choosing a VENUE for your meetings, which of the following features are the most
important for you?
Features
Rating Average
Proximity to airport and public transportation
Fast internet for your attendees
Quality of the food and beverage
Quality of the service provided by venue operations staff
Flexibility of meeting space
Speed of response of venue sales staff
Price
1.95
1.77
1.71
1.70
1.66
1.61
1.52
Going beyond the issue of the tangible and intangible features of destinations and venues that most
matter to Chinese planners, the survey also explored the ways in which those planners wished to
interact with sales and marketing professionals attempting to win their business. Figures 11 and 12
provide guidance on this issue.
FIGURE 11
In your dealings with VENUES sales staff, what annoys you most?
Rating
Average
They don’t answer my calls quickly enough
They want to charge extra for things like Audio-Visual / Parking / Security that should be
included in the overall price
They contact me over and over again, even after I tell them I’m not interested in their venue
2.15
They are inflexible about food and beverage options
1.82
They talk at me too much instead of listening and asking me questions about my meeting
1.63
They are inflexible in negotiations about price
They do not tell me about changes in the venue that will affect the quality of my meeting (for
example, noise and disruption due to building works)
Staff turnover – changes of personnel, meaning that I have to deal with new members of staff
who know little or nothing about my meeting
1.61
1.90
1.88
1.53
1.51
FIGURE 12
In your dealings with DESTINATIONS marketing staff, what annoys you most?
Rating
Average
They don’t answer my calls quickly enough
2.01
They contact me over and over again, even after I tell them I’m not interested in their destination
1.84
Staff turnover – changes of personnel, meaning that I have to deal with new members of staff who
know little or nothing about my meeting
They talk at me too much, instead of listening and asking me questions about my meeting
1.70
They do not have enough knowledge of the destination they are marketing
1.59
They do not give me information on the full range of venues and hotels in their destination
1.57
1.67
It can be seen that most of the top-ranked sources of annoyance for the meeting planners were
examples of behaviour that waste their most importance resource, time. In the case of both venue
sales staff and destinations marketing staff, the principal source of annoyance for Chinese meeting
planners is the slow response time when they call with requests for information.
Similarly, the practice of repeatedly contacting meeting planners, even when they have made it clear
that they are not interested, was ranked as being among the three most annoying habits, in the case of
both venue sales staff and destination marketing staff.
In terms of the meeting planners’ frustrations with the behaviour of venue sales staff, these timewasting habits were followed by what they considered to be inflexibility on the part of venues when
negotiating elements affecting the price of using their facilities. It would appear that although, as
stated above, price is not the over-riding factor taken into account by planners when hiring venues,
they are nevertheless exasperated by being charged for services such as audio-visual, parking and
security that they think should be included in the basic price. Venues being generally unyielding in
negotiations on price was identified as a major annoyance.
It is interesting to note that a common bugbear of meeting planners everywhere – suppliers’ staff
turnover – was highlighted as a more serious problem in the case of destination marketing staff than in
the case of venues. Given the high importance of destination marketing organisations as sources of
information for Chinese meeting planners, as seen in Figure 6, it may be that those planners feel more
acutely inconvenienced when their DMO contacts change jobs.
Regarding the supply of venues and the quality of venues available to the meeting planners, the
responses shown in Figure 13 indicate a moderately high level of satisfaction on both counts, but
room for improvement in terms of both quantity and quality.
FIGURE 13
In general, how satisfied are you with the quality and quantity of venues available to you, for
your meetings?
Quality
Quantity
Very satisfied
19
13
Quite satisfied
106
100
Quite dissatisfied
14
20
Very dissatisfied
0
0
Similarly, the data in the table below suggests that the meeting planners faced little difficulty in
finding information on destinations for their meetings in China, but a greater level of difficulty in
getting information on venues in their own country.
FIGURE 14
In general, how easy it is for you to get useful information on destinations and venues for your
meetings in CHINA?
To get information on destinations
To get information on venues
Very easy
36
30
Quite easy
98
93
Quite difficult
8
17
Very difficult
0
1
On the other hand, it is clear from the results in Figure 15 that the planners were experiencing much
greater difficulty in finding out about destinations and venues in other countries. While this result may
be unsurprising, it nevertheless sends an important signal to destinations and venues outside China
that they must work harder to make communication with the Chinese market easier.
FIGURE 15
In general, how easy it is for you to get useful information on destinations and venues for your
meetings in OTHER countries (not China) ?
To get information on destinations
To get information on venues
Very easy
18
10
Quite easy
74
64
Quite difficult
50
57
Very difficult
0
9
Finally, the survey asked respondents about how they preferred to receive information about
destinations and venues for their meetings. Figure 16 shows that email is by far the preferred channel
of communication for these Chinese meeting planners, with the next most-favoured means of
communication, personal visits, a long way behind. Interestingly – and in contrast with surveys
conducted in Europe – no planner indicated a preference for receiving marketing information via the
social media.
FIGURE 16
How do you prefer to be contacted by people who want to give you information about
venue?
Response Percent
65.7%
By email
12.6%
By a personal visit in your office
7.7%
By appointment at an exhibition for the meetings industry
5.6%
By telephone
5.6%
By mail
1.4%
I prefer not to be contacted directly
1.4%
Other
0.0%
Through the social media
their destination or
Response Count
94
18
11
8
8
2
2
0