Who is the guilty party – when it comes to a slow reaction to a planner’s request-for-proposal (RFP) from a MICE venue with or without accommodation? Why are instructed setups not in place on arrival?
A survey completed by Global Business Travel Association (GBTA) in June 2015 states the following:
“What looked like a win-win for planners and properties alike in terms of efficiencies has had unintended consequences. Hoteliers are struggling to manage the volume of eRFPs and looking for ways to identify the more likely lucrative opportunities, while meeting planners are issuing high numbers of eRFPs to secure more options and to obtain responses when there is limited availability. The net result is a process that may not be the best solution for buyers or hoteliers.”
The outcomes of the GBTA survey make for interesting reading. Major findings from the studies include:
- eRFP distribution to hotels and venues for events continues to rise.
- Factors that are influencing the number of eRFPs being distributed include buyer and customer misconceptions and lack of understanding regarding what hoteliers value as well as how they evaluate meetings business, marketing packages offered by meeting technology companies that generate large numbers of leads for their premium marketing customers and improved economic conditions.
There are emerging solutions to these challenges, including education, limits mandated by policy or technology and more efficient response systems for hoteliers.
Venue management may resort to tracking of planner’s amount of RFPs in conjunction with take-up to advise the reasons for a venue response priority rating per planner.
This will be a part of the brief to EIS 2015 panelists taking place on Thursday 1 October at Hackle Brooke Conference Centre. Register early online.
