ceis-3-0-faq

Upload: alberto-hayek

Post on 03-Jun-2018

216 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • 8/11/2019 ceis-3-0-faq

    1/7

    1

    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS:The Economic Contribution of Business Events in Canada in 2012 (CEIS 3.0)

    Q1. What were the objectives of the CEIS 3.0 study of the economic contribution of business

    meeting events in Canada in 2012?

    A. The 2012 Canadian Economic Impact Study (3.0) reports on Meeting Activity and its

    Economic Contributions of meetings, speciically business events, held in Canada for thestudy reference year 2012. Building on the original CEIS 1.0 prototype study conducted forthe base year 2006 and other subsequent studies conducted in the United States, Mexico and

    United Kingdom, using the same research approach developed by the United Nations WorldTourism Organization, this study included the additional capacity to produce economicassessment of meetings at the regional, provincial and metropolitan levels. It also included

    supplementary survey coverage of international delegates from seven key internationalmarkets in order to compare the spending and economic contributions of internationalattendees with domestic business meeting attendees.

    Q2. What is the methodological approach used in CEIS 3.0 to compile, analyze and report

    on business meetings activity and its economic contributions in Canada for 2012?

    A. As in the 2006 irst prototype study, the CEIS 3.0 results were obtained through acombination of an ambitious primary data collection plan and economic analysis: using theirst-of-its kind prototype survey research speciically tailored to capture meetings activitydata from both the demand-side constituencies (delegates, exhibitors, and speakers) andthe industry supply-side (meeting organizers, venue managers, and destination marketingorganizations) , and economic modeling that framed the results in a customized Meetings

    Accounting Framework. The accounting framework is based on, and conceptually linkedwith how tourism data are oficially reported -- the Tourism Satellite Account. The economiccontribution analysis reveals the direct contribution as well as the indirect and inducedimpacts of business meetings on the Canadian Economy.

    Q3. How does the methodology used 2012 compare with the previous 2006 CEIS 1.0 study?

    A. The data collection design, measurement and analysis approaches used in the 2012study are largely the same as those employed in the original 2006 CEIS 1.0, irst prototypestudy. Both studies are based on the implementation of the overall measurement accountingframework and approach outlined by the UNWTO preliminary report of 2006, Measuringthe Economic Importance of the Meetings Industry: Developing a Tourism Satellite Account

    Extension(November 2006).However, subsequent to the original CEIS 1.0 prototype study, the UNWTO framework waslater reined to limit the key measurement concept of meetings exclusively to business andprofessional events by explicitly excluding from the deinition all personal, social, formaleducational, purely recreational, political, and consumer/customer sales activities asoutlined in the UNWTO Global Meeting Initiative, Volume 1: Basic Concepts and Definitions(September2008). Another change, introduced by UNWTO in 2008 was an expansion of thescope of meetings industry players to include Destination Marketing Organizations.

    Frequently Asked QuestionsThe Economic Contribution of Business Events in Canada in 2012 (CEIS 3.0)

  • 8/11/2019 ceis-3-0-faq

    2/7

    2

    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS:The Economic Contribution of Business Events in Canada in 2012 (CEIS 3.0)

    As a result, the major methodological design differences in the measurement approaches ofthe 2006 and 2012 studies is the exclusion of Consumer Shows and Consumer Exhibitionsand the inclusion of Destination Marketing Organizations within the study measurement,analysis and reporting framework.

    An appropriate metaphor would be to think of the two studies as two, largely similar,statistical snapshots of Meetings Activity and its Economic Contributions, using the samecamera but slightly different lenses, providing different ields of vision. As a consequence,while the results from the two studies are still broadly comparable; they present twosomewhat different views of meetings activity in Canada and its contributions to the

    Canadian economy. In examining apparent differences between the results of the twostudies, caution and care must be exercised in their interpretation. Apparent differences in

    the observed results can arise from changes in the combination of meetings demand and/or supply as well as changes in the measurement deinitions and methodologies employed.Furthermore, within the framework of the overall research design, it is not possible to fullyisolate and separate the individual effects of each potential source of change.

    Q4. Did the other CEIS 2.0 update studies for 2007 and 2008 use the same approach as theinitial CEIS 1.0 study, or are they directly comparable with this one for 2012?

    A.The previous update report, conducted for the calendar year 2007 and 2008, usedthe same conceptual measurement framework as the 2006 study, but a slightly differentmethodological approach by utilizing the linkages between economic data, oficial tourismstatistics and the benchmark CEIS (2006) results (both the Accounting Framework andthe economic modeling established in that Study) to produce updated estimates extendingacross three years (2006-2008) without the necessity of undertaking new survey research.Since there were no conceptual changes in the measurement framework across the threeyears, the year-over-year changes could be compared directly without qualiication.However, because of the changes in the conceptual construct of in-scope meetings activityintroduced in 2012, the CEIS 2.0 results are not directly comparable with the results of theCEIS 3.0 study of 2012.

    Q5. What activities are included and excluded within the operational concept of Meetingsused in this study?

    A.For the purposes of this second update study, based on the measurement reinementsintroduced by the UNWTO in 2008, the term meeting refers to a gathering of l0 or moreparticipants for a minimum of 4 hours in a contracted venue. Meetings include conventions,conferences, congresses, trade shows and exhibitions, incentive events, corporate business

    meetings, and other meetings that meet the previously speciied criteria. Meetings excludesocial activities (wedding receptions, holiday parties, etc.), permanently established formaleducational activities (primary, secondary, or university level education), purely recreationalactivities (such as concerts and entertainment shows and sports events), political campaign

    rallies, or gatherings of consumers or would-be consumers by a company for the purpose ofpresenting speciic goods or services for sale (consumer shows and consumer exhibitions),which would fall instead under the scope of retail or wholesale trade.

  • 8/11/2019 ceis-3-0-faq

    3/7

    3

    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS:The Economic Contribution of Business Events in Canada in 2012 (CEIS 3.0)

    Q6. How do the 2012 results for levels of Meeting Activity, Participants and Spending

    compare with the results of the previous CEIS project assessments for 2006, 2007 and 2008?

    A.The overall picture of the levels Meetings Activity and related Spending levels in Canadathat emerges in comparing the results from the three studies across the seven year period

    2006-2012 is one of continuing change, both in terms of the direction and size of changes instudy-over-study results. Moreover, the trends in the observed levels of Meetings Activity,Participants and associated expenditures all moved in a consistently negative direction in2012: with negative growth observed for Meeting Activity levels and Participants, and totalDirect Spending. In 2012, after implementing the deinitional changes introduced by UNWTOin 2008, the number of `in-scope business meetings occurring in Canada decreased bynearly 13% with the largest decrease found in Other Meetings (-44%), and two majorexceptions to the trend expansion growth being seen in Incentive Meeting Events (69.7%)and Trade Shows and Business Exhibitions (39.5%). The levels observed for MeetingParticipants also declined even more sharply by almost half (-47.7%) with decreases foundfor all visitor origin groups including the largest decrease observed in Non-local Domesticparticipants (-52.7%) followed by similar declines for Local (-48.6%) and International(-35.7%) participants. Overall in 2012, meeting expenditures decreased by nearly 10%,

    consistent with the negative growth trends of overall Meeting Activity levels and Participants.The picture for 2012 contrasts sharply with the earlier picture that emerged from thedirectly comparable studies between 2006 and 2008, which was one of small incrementalchanges involving initial growth, followed by equally small contractions, resulting in arelatively static multi-year growth trend in both activity levels and expenditure. Once again,the picture for 2006-2008 included a few speciic exceptions to the overall picture of stabilityincluding: a small observed decline in the number of delegates travelling the greatestdistances; a decline too in the incidence of Consumer shows in 2007; while Incentivemeetings showed a decline in both the number of meetings and spending in 2008.

    COMPARISONS WITH PREVIOUS STUDIES RESULTS

    MEETINGS ACTIVITIES2006

    PROTOTYPE 2007 2008 2012% GROWTH20062012

    All Meetings 670,900 696,800 671,900 585,400 - 12.7

    By Type

    Conference/Conventions/Congresses

    126,200 127,800 124,400 116,200 -8.0

    Consumer shows 6,600 6,400 6,400 NA NA

    Trade shows/BusinessExhibitions

    11,000 11,200 11,000 15,300 39.5

    Incentive events 11,700 12,300 11,500 19,900 69.7

    Corporate/Business meetings 391,500 410,500 395,600 364,800 -6.8

    Other Meetings 123,300 128,600 123,000 69,200 -44.1

    Total Participants 70,255,500 71,732,800 69,749,600 35,347,200 -47.7

    By Origin

    Local 40,360,900 41,625,100 40,696,400 20,739,000 -48.6

    Non-local domestic 27,456,110 27,814,900 26,874,300 12,986,000 -52.7

    International 2,438,500 2,292,800 2,178,900 1,568,100 -35.7

    Direct Spending (billions) $32.2 $32.5 $32.1 $29.0 -9.7

  • 8/11/2019 ceis-3-0-faq

    4/7

    4

    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS:The Economic Contribution of Business Events in Canada in 2012 (CEIS 3.0)

    Q7. What is the explanation for the drastic drop in numbers of meetings reported in the

    2012 results?

    A. The initial Executive Summary and Highlights reports of the 2012 Canadian CEIS studyreports a total of 585,000 business meeting events taking place in Canada compared with

    a total of 671,000 in 2006, a 13% drop of almost 86,000 reported meetings. One reason forthe drop in the number of reported meetings observed in 2012 is the aforementioned changein the scope of meetings included in the operational deinition in the study populationand economic measurement framework of the current study. The current study excludesconsumer shows and exhibitions. As noted earlier, this change in the scope of meetingsincluded in the study was made to bring the 2012 Canadian study into alignment withthe revised 2008 UNWTO guidelines (inalized after the 2006 Canadian study) as wellas the subsequent U.S. (2009, 2012) and Mexican (2010) Economic Impact Studies, asspeciied in the MPIFC terms of reference for the current study. The previous CEIS 1.0 studyreported about 6,500 consumer show and consumer exhibition meetings accounting for1.7% of all meeting events included in the 2006 study. By comparison, the current study,collected information on 9,686 out-of-scope unreported consumer shows and consumerexhibition meetings, representing approximately the same share (2%) of the estimated

    total of 595,125 in-scope and out-of scope meetings observed in Canada in 2012. For theaforementioned reasons, the inal base population of 585,000 meetings reported in thecurrent study excludes all consumer show and exhibition events; thereby representing a lossof approximately 2% of the total meetings population reported in 2006.

    A second reason for the decline in the overall number of meetings observed in 2012 is theobserved decline of the number of Other(unspeciied) meetings from 123,832 reportedin 2006 to 69,368 reported in 2012, is a loss of approximately 54,500 meetings, or a further44% of the total for that meeting type reported in 2006. It is believed that a large share ofthis difference is a result of an upward bias in the previous indings due to over-reportingof social, education, recreation and entertainment non-business related meeting eventsin the previous 2006 study. The higher speciicity in the wording of the meeting exclusioncriteria statements regarding education, recreation and entertainment or personal, social

    and political events used in the surveys of the current study led to a tightening in the scopeof the meeting exclusions that also extends to the reduced numbers observed in 2012 forboth Other business meetings and Conferences, Conventions and Congresses. Accordingly,the current study results include an observed decline in the number of Other Businessmeetings from 391,464 reported in 2006 to 364,626 reported in 2012. This represents a lossof approximately 27,000 meetings, or 4% of the total number of meetings reported in 2006.Similarly, the current study results showing a decline in the overall number of meetings alsoinclude a the drop in the number of Conferences, Conventions and Congresses observed from126,240 in 2006 to 116,063 in 2012, a loss of approximately 10,000 meetings, or a further1.5% of the total number of reported in 2006. At the same time, these reported declines inthe numbers and shares of speciic meeting types between 2006 and 2012 were partiallyoffset by increases in the numbers of Trade Shows and Business Expositions (+3,237, or+40%) and Incentive events (+ 8,160, or +69%) observed in 2012 compared with 2006.

    Q8. Overall spending doesnt seem to be so different in the 2012 results, why is that?

    A.Overall spending on business meeting events observed in 2012 only declined by about10%, from the amounts reported previously in 2006. This is because declines in the overallnumber of meeting events (-11.3%) and the number of meeting delegates (-54%) werepartially offset by observed increases in attendee spending (8.2%) between 2006 and 2012.It is also important to remember that the observed spending igures are reported in current

  • 8/11/2019 ceis-3-0-faq

    5/7

    5

    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS:The Economic Contribution of Business Events in Canada in 2012 (CEIS 3.0)

    dollars for both 2006 and 2012. Even without any other changes, aggregate spending wouldlikely increase by between 15-20 per cent as a result of increased prices due to inlationalone. It should also be noted that the scope of meetings industry players covered in thestudy expanded to include DMOs and their associated expenditure in the 2012 study. Thisavenue of spending was not considered in 2006.

    The new 2012 CEIS 3.0 overall direct spending igures of $49,618 per meeting and $823per participant are now closer in line with similar comparative 2012 benchmark estimatesfrom the United States of $152,956 USD per meeting and $1,246 USD direct spending perparticipant; and other similar estimates from the 2011 United Kingdom study of 45,867per meeting and 514 per participant. Again these estimates are not directly comparableas average meeting sizes and composition of meeting attendees are likely to be different.However, the placement of $49,706 per meeting for Canada next to these igures seems moreappropriate (compared with the previous estimates). It should be noted that the UKEIS studyincludes Consumer shows within its measurement framework; whereas these events areexcluded in the U.S. and Mexican studies, as well as the 2012 CEIS 3.0 Canadian study.

    Q9. How do the 2012 direct spending results for Meetings Activity in Canada compare withother comparable official Canadian tourism spending figures?

    A.Supplementary comparative assessment of other secondary oficial data from the NationalTourism Indicators annual measurements of Conference, Convention and Congress RegistrationFees covering the seven year period between the 2006 and 2012 benchmark studies providesanother independent, albeit limited, measurement benchmark, as well as further insights intothe evolution of meetings activity over the period between the two studies:

    1. In current dollar terms, the overall supply of conference, convention and congressregistration fees (consumed by the combination of tourism and non-tourism demand)grew by 9.3% between 2006 and 2012; whereas in constant dollar terms, adjusting forthe effects of inlation, only 2.9% growth in the overall supply of conference, conventionand congress registration was observed for the same reference period.

    2. Similarly, the overall tourism demand for conference, convention and congressregistration fees grew by 10.2% between 2006 and 2012; whereas in constant dollarterms, adjusting for the effects of inlation, the observed growth was only 3.1% duringthe same period.

    3. Furthermore, in current dollar terms tourism demand from international visitors forregistration fees actually declined by 7.7% during the same period; while in constantdollar terms, tourism demand for conference registration fees from international visitorshas declined by 20% during the 2006-2012 reference period.

    4. On the other hand, as noted earlier, 2012 CEIS 3.0 results describe a nearly 10%study-over-study reduction in the level of total meetings related direct expenditures(including registration fees) a inding that is inconsistent with the observed overall

    positive growth trends found in oficial National Tourism Indicator data for aggregatesupply and demand of overall conference, convention and congress registration fees(expressed in current dollars) .

  • 8/11/2019 ceis-3-0-faq

    6/7

    6

    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS:The Economic Contribution of Business Events in Canada in 2012 (CEIS 3.0)

    Q10. What about the 2012 Economic Contribution results, how do they compare with the

    results of the previous CEIS studies?

    A. The resultant effects on the economic contribution followed the aforementioned study-over-study pattern of changes seen in Meeting Activity and Participants levels, with Total

    GDP, employment, taxes, total wages and Total Industry Output contributions decliningbetween 2006 and 2012 for most industries supported by Meetings Activity. In 2012, thedecreases in the observed levels Meetings Activity led to sharp and equivalent losses inobserved contribution levels to total Gross Domestic Product (-18.4%), total employment(-41.4%), total wages (-15.2%), total tax contributions (-41.2%) and total economic activity,as measured by industry output (-22.6%).

    COMPARISON WITH PREVIOUS ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTIONS RESULTS

    ECONOMIC INDICATORS2006

    PROTOTYPE2007 2008 2012

    % GROWTH20062012

    Direct Spending (billions) $32.2 $32.5 $32.1 $29.0 -9.6

    Direct Contribution to GDP (billions) $11.3 $11.5 $11.3 $12.5 10.6

    Total Contribution to GDP (billions) $33.7 $34.3 $33.8 $27.5 -18.4

    Direct Employment(thousands of full-year jobs)

    235.5 231.7 222.9 201.3 -14.5

    Total Employment(thousands of full-year jobs)

    583.5 574.1 552.3 341.7 -41.4

    Direct Wages (billions) $7.3 $7.5 $7.4 $9.2 26.0

    Total Wages (billions) $20.4 $20.8 $20.5 $17.3 -15.2

    Direct Taxes (billions) $5.7 $5.7 $5.5 $5.1 -10.1

    Total Taxes (billions) $14.6 $14.7 $14.2 $8.5 -41.2

    Industry Output (billions) $71.1 $72.1 $71.1 $55.0 -22.6

    Q 11. The total economic contribution to GDP of meetings in Canada was previouslycalculated at $33.7 billion in 2006, $34.2 billion in 2007, and $33.8 billion in 2008; why is itnow only $27.5 billion?

    A. As noted previously, the observed study-over-study declines in the economic contributionof Meetings Activity in terms of GDP followed the study-over-study contraction pattern seenin Meeting Activity, Participant, and Direct Spending levels due primarily to the changes inthe precision of meeting category deinitions and the range of meeting activities includedwithin the scope of measurement with the application of the revised 2008 UNWTO meetingsmeasurement guidelines particularly the exclusion of Consumer Shows and ConsumerExhibitions from the reported results in 2012. An aforementioned notable exception to the

    observed contraction trend is the observed expansion growth purely as it related to overallspending of attendees. Here, despite the reduced scope of meeting types, spending increased(8.2%). This was, in large part, due to price inlation in the range of 10%-15% and offsettinggrowth in the levels of several exceptional meeting activities, speciically Incentive Eventsand Trade Shows. While the direct GDP contribution associated with business meetingswere higher in 2012 (10.6%), reductions were observed in the indirect and induced impactphases. Indirect effects capture the spin-off beneits to other sectors associated withMeetings activity dollars entering the economy. In this case, sharp reductions were observedas diminished supply chain effects are present, particularly with the removal of ConsumerShows and Consumer Exhibitions from the analysis and reporting framework. Meanwhile,

  • 8/11/2019 ceis-3-0-faq

    7/7

    7

    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS:The Economic Contribution of Business Events in Canada in 2012 (CEIS 3.0)

    induced round effects, which are caused by the re-spending of wages supported eitherdirectly or indirectly from Meetings Activity, were also reported to be lower in 2012 than in2006. Speciically reductions in induced level of employment and wages and salaries mirrorthe sharp declines observed for indirect effects and contribute to the lower estimates foraggregate direct, indirect and induced impacts. The bottom-line of the Canadian meetings

    economy is clearly affected by the scope of activities and participants included within themeasurement framework as well as the larger national economic context.

    Q12. Do International business meeting attendees contribute more to the economy thandomestic attendees or international leisure travel visitors?

    A.In order to compare the spending and economic contributions of international business

    meeting attendees with domestic business meeting attendees or international leisure travellers,

    the CEIS 3.0 research design also included supplementary survey coverage of international

    delegates from seven key international markets United States, United Kingdom, France,

    Germany, China, Australia, and Brazil. We need to carry out more analysis of the collected data

    and compare it with other tourism information in order assess this comparison and understand

    if the supply-chain works differently for attendees from these priority international markets.

    Q13. How do these results compare other international studies results?

    A. As noted earlier, these results are broadly comparable with the results from other recentstudies in the United States, Mexico and the United Kingdom, since all have used variationsof the same measurement framework and approached designed by the United Nations WorldTourism Organization for measuring the economic importance of the meeting industry.

    Within this context, the new 2012 spending igures of $49,618 per meeting are now closerin line with those similar benchmark estimates from the United States of $152,956 USD permeeting and $1,246 USD direct spending per participant in 2012); from Mexico of $91,745USD per meeting and $785 USD per participant, and from the UK of 45,867 per meeting and514 per participant. Nonetheless, once again, these estimates cannot be considered directly

    comparable as average meeting sizes and the composition of international or local attendeescould be different along with other factors. Moreover, the UKEIS study includes Consumershows within its measurement framework; whereas these events are excluded in the U.S.and Mexican studies, as well as the 2012 CEIS 3.0 Canadian study. However, the placement of$49,618 per meeting and $823 per meeting participant found in the Canadian study for 2012compares quite favourably next to those other national igures.

    COUNTRY / YEARUNITED STATES

    2012MEXICO

    2010UNITED

    KINGDOM 2011*CANADA

    2012

    Total Contribution to GDP(including indirect & induced)

    $393.8 B (USD) $25.1 B (USD) 58.4 B $27.5 B (CAD)

    Total Direct Spending $280.4 B (USD) $18.1 B (USD) 59.7 B $29.0 B (CAD)

    Number of meetings 1,833,200 197,400 1,301,600 585,400

    Number of participants(millions)

    224,947,000 23,060,000 116,100,000 35,347,200

    Direct spending per meeting $152,956 (USD) $91,745 (USD) 45,867 $49,618 (CAD)

    Direct spending perparticipant

    $1,246 (USD) $785 (USD) 514 $823 (CAD)

    *The 2011 UKEIS includes consumer shows and consumer exhibitions within its measurement framework.