Liz Latham, co-founder of Club Ichi and a brilliant event marketer, recently shared an intriguing idea she plans to test to increase attendance at her free events.
Having registrants not show up has become a big problem for the meeting industry, especially for free events. Not long ago, registrants would reliably attend events they signed up for, barring unforeseen circumstances—a far cry from today’s reality. Price incentives for early registration worked, and predicting attendance rate and attrition was a science, not an art.
Those were the days!
Today, with the multiple impacts of easy online registration, FOMO rivalry, and more choices for events than ever, it’s far more likely that registrants don’t appear on the day.
For event conveners, this is at best dispiriting and at worst financially disastrous.
So anything we can do that might reduce the uncertainty and percentage of no-shows is worth considering.
So Liz is considering taking credit-card information at registration time, and charging a “no-show fee” to the card if the registrant doesn’t attend.
Although this idea may be new to the meeting industry, the above links show that many appointment-based businesses routinely use this approach.
No-show fees aren’t needed for paid events, which can have cancellation policies that offer partial refunds, compensating, at least financially, for no-shows. Rather, Liz is thinking of testing no-show fees for the many free events she organizes, where attendance rates are often well below 50% of registrations.
Could no-show fees work for the meeting industry?
Pros: From a meeting organizer’s perspective, the implementation of a no-show fee may deter folks registering who only expect to attend if nothing better shows up at the time of the meeting. This minimizes waste by better aligning logistical preparations with actual attendance. Implementing no-show fees can also benefit registrants who do show up, since the promoted event size (including, optionally, a list of registrants) is more likely to be accurate.
Cons: Requiring credit card information at registration may frustrate those confident they’ll attend and adds security and logistical challenges for organizers. In addition, the organizers will need to create a refund policy for no-shows with a defined and legitimate reason (such as a death in the family, travel disruptions, etc.), and implementing this could be cumbersome.
Your thoughts?
Do you think implementing no-show fees at free events is an idea worth exploring? Have you tried or experienced no-show fees at a meeting? Please share your thoughts and experiences in the comments below!
If you are serious about improving your conferences, my meeting design workshop can be the game-changer your organization needs. Here’s what happens at a typical one-day workshop.
In a world where passive listening no longer satisfies attendees, traditional lecture-based conferences are ineffective and outdated. Today’s participants crave authentic engagement, meaningful connections, and interactive learning experiences. Are your conferences delivering the engagement, learning, and connection attendees expect? My meeting design workshops equip event professionals with the tools and techniques to create truly participatory and impactful experiences.
I’ve spent years helping organizations transform their events into connection-rich, engaging experiences through my hands-on meeting design workshops. Every workshop is customized to align with the organization’s goals and stakeholders’ wants and needs.
Here’s a peek behind the curtain!
Program for a typical one-day meeting design workshop
This one-day workshop offers a hands-on opportunity to learn through direct experience of participatory meeting formats and techniques. Participants will engage in cycles of interactive experiences followed by debriefs, interspersed with short “theory bites” that provide critical background knowledge and concepts. These formats will be introduced in the approximate order they might appear during a typical participatory and connection-rich event.
The following program is designed for a one-day, eight-hour schedule.
Opening
Workshop Introduction, Overview, and Agreements (~20 minutes)
Establishing explicit group agreements ensures a shared understanding of expectations and participant behavior, creating a collaborative foundation for the workshop.
Learning About Who’s in the Room (~60 minutes)
One of the most powerful ways to begin an event is by helping attendees discover key information about each other. This session will explore questions such as:
Who are my peers here? Who understands my work because they do what I do?
What are the nature and sizes of other attendee groups?
Which attendees work across groupings, and how?
Who else here lives or works near me?
How many years of experience are present? Who are the novices and the veterans?
How can we display the degree of consensus on a topic and make visible the distribution of participant opinions?
Using tools like human spectrograms, we will visualize participant data, uncover shared connections, and explore questions suggested by attendees.
Break (~15 minutes)
The Three Questions: Uncovering and Satisfying Participants’ Wants and Needs (~75 minutes)
How can we create a conference that becomes what participants actually want and need? This opening format allows participants to:
Learn fundamentally useful information about each individual present.
Share personal and collective wants and needs for the event.
Uncover the learning resources available within the group.
Insights will inform the design of the afternoon program. The session concludes with a debrief to reflect on the experience.
Lunch and Afternoon Session Determination (~75 minutes)
During lunch, participants will use the Post It! For Programs format to propose session ideas by answering the question: “If you could pick a session to hold at this workshop, using the people and resources around you, what would it be?”
Participants can:
Ask for or offer to lead a session.
Propose internal topics relevant to the organization or request specific formats, such as:
Ask Adrian Anything: (AMA).
Fishbowl Sandwich: Facilitating discussions on large group problems.
The Solution Room: Obtaining confidential peer-supported advice.
Open Space and World Café: Formats for short participant-driven conferences (Open Space) and dialog in small groups about predetermined questions (World Café).
Reminders, Sparks, Questions, Puzzles: A short format that allows participants to efficiently engage with and explore presented consent.
Voting formats: Exploring techniques like hand/stand, Roman, card, table, dot, and anonymous voting.
The outcome will be a tailored afternoon program that meets the group’s wants and needs.
Middle
The customized afternoon program will feature sessions chosen by participants, including opportunities for facilitated discussions, problem-solving, and peer learning. Breaks will be scheduled as needed. (~130 minutes)
Closing
Personal Introspective (~60 minutes)
This two-part session helps participants reflect on their learning and determine actionable changes to implement. This session may be adjusted or omitted if additional time is allocated to the afternoon program.
Break (~5 minutes)
Group Spective (~40 minutes)
A combination of retrospective and prospective feedback, this plenary session allows participants to share insights about the workshop and collectively reflect on its impact. It also fosters a sense of community and provides valuable feedback for future events.
This one-day workshop promises a rich, participatory learning experience that equips attendees with tools and techniques to create engaging and effective conferences that support the connection and learning attendees want and need.
Why choose a participatory meeting design workshop?
Meeting design workshops like these empower event planners and participants to:
Enhance Engagement: Move beyond passive listening by learning how to foster authentic and useful participation.
Build Meaningful Connections: Help attendees uncover relevant shared interests, expertise, and experience, and develop lasting professional relationships.
Maximize Learning: Leverage the expertise and experiences of the group to create valuable, participant-driven sessions that meet their wants and needs.
Every workshop is customized to align with your organization’s goals and the wants and needs of your audience.
By learning how to design participation-rich conferences, you’ll not only meet the expectations to learn and connect of today’s attendees but also elevate the impact and value of your events for all your stakeholders.
Ready to transform your events?
If this outline inspires you, let’s connect! I’d love to discuss how a participatory meeting design workshop can help you reimagine your events and deliver exceptional value to your stakeholders. Contact me today to explore how we can work together to create engaging, effective, and memorable conferences.
As recently reported by MeetingsNet, Expo! Expo! “will offer all exhibitors access to Zenus AI’s facial-analysis technology after a limited rollout at the 2023 [show]”. However, MeetingsNet also includes the following statement:
“Nicole Bowman, vice president of marketing and communications for IAEE, says that because the technology ‘gives anonymized sentiment about areas [of the show floor], we would not need to, nor did we in 2023, notify attendees’ that it was being used.” [emphasis added]
—Rob Carey, MeetingsNet, Expanded Use of Facial Analysis Coming to Events-Industry Show
Excerpt from “Ethical AI by Zenus: A Summary” on Zenus website [emphasis added]So IAEE’s statement directly contradicts Zenus’s own recommendation for clients, which includes notifying attendees about the technology through “signage on-site”, “marketing communications”, and inclusion in “their online terms and conditions”.
The reality of attendee awareness
When meeting attendees learn they are being monitored for age, gender, and emotions, reactions are often negative. For example, in response to Greg Kamprath’s post You Shouldn’t Use Facial Analysis At Your Event, attendees expressed discomfort after discovering that cameras were observing them “pretty much everywhere” at PCMA’s 2023 Convening Leaders event.
As discussed in these posts, the design of Zenus’s technology does not allow individual attendees to opt out. If IAEE followed Zenus’s recommendation to notify attendees that facial analysis would operate “across the entire show floor” and attendees then requested not to be surveilled, IAEE and Zenus would be unable to comply with these requests without shutting down the entire system.
An added complication is that the 2024 IAEE Expo! Expo! will be held in California, where the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA) grants consumers certain rights over the personal information that businesses collect about them. CCPA regulations define personal information as:
This grey area, which facial analysis technology exploits, remains in legal limbo, as neither definition clarifies whether consumers have the right to opt out.
Still, at the very least, attendees should have the right to request exclusion from facial analysis surveillance. IAEE’s decision not to inform attendees, despite Zenus’s recommendation, suggests an intent to sidestep these legal and ethical issues.
Conclusions
At a minimum, IAEE should comply with Zenus’s request they inform Expo! Expo! attendees that facial analysis technology will be operating across the show floor for exhibitors’ benefit.
Only then might we see how attendees truly feel about such surveillance.
What are your thoughts on using facial analysis to gauge “attendee sentiment”? Do you believe attendees have a legal or ethical right to be informed? Should they have the right to opt out?
Currently, no commercial sensors exist that can monitor the concentrations of infectious viruses in the air in real time. However, indoor carbon dioxide (CO₂) concentrations — easily measurable with inexpensive hand-held devices — provide a good proxy for how much of the air we breathe is being exhaled by other people who may be infected. Now, there’s a new wrinkle. Research published in Nature in April 2024 concludes that higher concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO₂) also help viruses stay alive longer in the air. In other words, high CO2 levels in the air we breathe pose a double threat of viral contagion.
Let’s put these findings in the context of real-world measurements of CO2 in common situations faced by people attending and staffing in-person events.
What CO2 concentrations do conference attendees and staff experience?
Typical outdoor CO2 levels are 300 – 400 parts per million (ppm). In May 2022, I measured air quality readings during a trip to facilitate a conference in Puerto Rico. During that trip, I saw in-flight airplane CO2 concentrations of over 1,000 ppm. During embarking and deplaning I saw peaks of over 2,000 ppm. Ground transportation readings in taxis and coaches were well above 1,000 ppm. The conference center, with high ceilings and lightly occupied, had 500 – 600 ppm readings.
I’ve seen similar readings during numerous subsequent trips.
The prior consensus was that CO2 readings above ~1,000 ppm imply significant exposure to potentially infectious air. From an events perspective, before these latest findings, we classified environments of concern as follows:
Dangerously high CO2 exposures:
Ground transportation—private cars, taxis, coaches, etc., unless windows are open or fresh outdoor air ventilation is available.
Airplanes during embarking and deplaning.
High CO2 exposures:
Airplane flights.
Crowded conference rooms and common areas with poor ventilation.
Hotel rooms with poor ventilation or air flow from nearby rooms.
Indoor restaurants without excellent ventilation.
The double whammy of high CO2 in the air we breathe
We now know that high CO2 levels not only indicate that the air we breathe is more contaminated by other peoples’ exhalations, but also that high concentrations of CO₂ also help infectious viruses stay alive longer in the air.
“In poorly ventilated, occupied, indoor spaces, ambient [CO2(g)] commonly reaches concentrations exceeding 2000 ppm and can reach levels upwards of >5000 ppm in more crowded environments.”
“…a significant increase in SARS-CoV-2 aerostability results from a moderate increase in the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration (e.g. 800 ppm)”
“After 40 min, approximately an order of magnitude more viral infectious particles remain viable in the aerosol phase at elevated [CO2(g)] when compared to the loss expected under ambient (well-ventilated) conditions. This increase in the relative abundance of infectious particles is likely to result in increased risk of transmission of the infection.”
Significantly, the Nature researchers found that CO2 levels of as little as 800 ppm allow the SARS-CoV-2 virus to remain ten times more viable after forty minutes than regular CO2 levels. This happens within 2 minutes of exposure to 800 ppm of CO2.
“When compared to a typical atmospheric [CO2(g)] (~500 ppm), increasing the [CO2(g)] to just 800 ppm results in a significant increase in viral aerostability after 2 min … No significant difference in infectivity is observed between 800 ppm and 6500 ppm. It is notable that, according to the UK Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE), 800 ppm [CO2(g)] has been identified as the level below which a room is determined to be well-ventilated.”
“With the recent spread of H5N1 bird flu into many mammal species, including dairy cattle and farmworkers who care for them, and the continuing rise in atmospheric CO2 levels, understanding the complex interplay between viruses, human bodies, and the environments where they eat, sleep, and breathe, is only growing more urgent.”
What is now clear is that meeting environments previously seen as somewhat risky for viral contagion are much more dangerous than was previously thought.
Creating fake women speakers is just one tiny step in the right direction. Think big! How hard is it to make all your speakers fake? OK, so some intrepid journalists took the time to discover that a few women speakers featured on a conference website don’t exist. Well, no one’s going to bother to do that for your male speakers, because everyone expects that men will be the vast majority of your headliners. So you have nothing to lose! Make all your speakers fake!
Fake attendees
The next logical step: create fake attendees! Lots of them! We are all impressed by those huge events that everyone who is everyone has to attend for FOMO. And getting people to register and actually attend events these days is a ton of work. Hard work! Instead, simply have ChatGPT generate a long list of impressive attendees. Be sure to ask for a good mix of ethnic names, genders, and geographical regions, together with impressive job titles at big-name companies. Ten minutes work, tops! Your event is already a success! And it hasn’t even happened yet!
Fake events
At this point, the final step should be obvious. Putting together a successful event, in-person, online, or, heaven-forbid, hybrid is HARD! It takes time. It costs money!
Give yourself a break! Stop running yourself ragged designing, preparing, and running real events.
Instead, create fake events!
Here are some of the advantages of fake events over real ones.
No pesky people to hire, fire, and pay!
Ditto, contractors! Goodbye, logistics! No more negotiating with F&B suppliers, transportation services, in-house production, etc. (Don’t get me started on in-house production.)
Zero expenses! The only tool you need is ChatGPT—and it’s free! (For now.)
High status! Post about your well-attended and prestigious fake events on X and LinkedIn and see your stature in the #eventprofs community soar! Don’t forget to have your fake attendees rave about their experiences (again, think ChatGPT) too!
It’s a no-brainer—right?!
A final word
If everything I’ve said still hasn’t convinced you to sit down at your computer, or even your phone, and start pumping out fake events, here’s one more point to bear in mind.
We may all be living in a simulation! Yes, I know it sure seems like we’ve been laboriously creating amazing events for years. But what if we’re just ones and zeros in a supercomputer, programmed by some teenage wunderalien who has nothing better to do?
In other words, you may have been designing, preparing, and running fake events your whole (simulated) life!
Now you’re aware of this, is there any reason not to create fake events?
Reading two recent MeetingsNet articles about the value of trade show appointments reminds me of a story attributed to the wry 13th-century Sufi philosopher Nasreddin.
American Sign Language for “You’re right!”
Two men who were quarreling came to Nasreddin and asked him to adjudicate their argument. The first man presented his case, and when he was done, Nasreddin exclaimed, “You’re right!” The second man shouted, “You haven’t even listened to my side of the story!” He then presented his case and when he was done, Nasreddin exclaimed again, “You’re right!”
Nasreddin’s wife, who had listened to the whole thing, remarked, “They can’t both be right.”
Nasreddin looked at his wife and exclaimed with a smile, “You’re right too!”
Yes, although the articles express seemingly very different points of view, I think they’re both right!
Desirée Knight on trade show appointments
Let’s start with Desirée Knight, senior director of meetings at the American Psychological Association (APA), who shares a pessimistic view of the future of prescheduled appointments at her association events.
MeetingsNet: Five years from now, what won’t we be doing on the trade-show floor that we’re doing today?
Knight: We will not be doing appointments on the trade-show floor. We must rethink this concept and find new approaches to customer engagement. This will require the industry to develop new approaches to KPIs and different measurement tools. In the end, we are responsible for creating engaging events for our stakeholders. Setting appointments within the trade-show environment is not engaging and, quite frankly, for some, not a good use of time. Creating collaborative spaces with AI gadgets or open forums to discuss current trends and issues will help vendors and buyers reset their views on developing business. The next generation of trade-show attendees are looking for engaging content and not just 15-minute appointments. —Two Minutes with Desirée Knight, CAE, CMP, DES • MeetingsNet, Mar 07, 2023
Carina Bauer’s point of view
Two weeks later, Carina Bauer, CEO of the IMEX Group, parent company to two leading trade shows in the business events industry, defended the value of trade show appointments:
“Let’s start with trade shows essentially being marketplaces (they’ve performed this role for hundreds of years) where the primary motivation for showing up is to do business. When planned and managed carefully, appointments are an efficient use of everyone’s time. A prescheduled appointment tells a business-hungry exhibitor that a motivated buyer is interested in them. A pre-agreed appointment allows time for sound preparation on both sides of the deal—a detailed RFP is often met by an exhibitor who’s done in-depth and detailed research. That instantly becomes an ROI win-win.
ROI and ROE (return on experience) are clearly now more important than ever, and buyers are more discerning about which events they attend. However, our experience shows that once committed, 21st-century planners don’t want to leave their schedules to chance. In fact, what they want—demand—is flexible scheduling and to be treated with respect, e.g. no forced matchmaking or quotas. That means trusting them to do business; encouraging them to make appointments when they have firm business to place but also valuing their time spent in other ways such as learning or networking.” —In Defense of Buyer-Seller Appointments on the Trade-Show Floor by Carina Bauer • MeetingsNet, Mar 20, 2023
So, who’s right?
Associations’ needs vary
First of all, it’s important to note that Desirée is talking about the specific needs of her association. I have designed and facilitated events for hundreds of associations, and seen a large variation in the importance and positioning of trade shows at their meetings. Some associations do not even want a trade show component, while for others it’s a primary draw for members. Though I don’t know the specific objectives of the APA, reading between the lines gives the impression that the association wants its events to focus primarily on education and connection between participants, rather than creating and supporting supplier relationships.
Trade show organizers have a wider perspective
Second, it’s clear that Carina is coming from a wider perspective than that of an association meeting director. IMEX trade shows act as a marketplace for meeting industry suppliers and planners. Planners choose to attend because they see value in the convenience and efficiency of shopping for services and venues at one event. The ongoing popularity of IMEX trade shows, despite the significant impact of COVID, shows that trade show appointments meet genuine needs of both planners and suppliers.
Money, money, money
Finally, trade shows are the public face of a reality that few in the meeting industry discuss publicly. (It’s not mentioned in either of these articles, though it often influences decisions made by planners, suppliers, and trade show organizers.) The reality is that trade shows involve significant amounts of money. In many cases, they are the biggest event revenue sources for associations and the largest expense for participating suppliers. Some associations derive the bulk of their operating budget from trade show receipts and can charge low, sometimes no, fees to attendees. On the other side, the selling opportunities supplied by trade show appointments are perhaps the most compelling reason for suppliers to pay high fees to exhibit.
If APA (or any association) eliminates trade show appointments, they may see reduced revenue from suppliers that will need to be made up in some other area. (For example, by increasing participant fees to attend.) This is an issue that is discussed extensively internally by both:
Associations that are trying to optimize member satisfaction without sacrificing revenue; and
Suppliers that have to determine the value of exhibiting with or without secured and prescheduled appointments with potential or existing customers.
You’re both right!
Desirée and Carina are both right about the value of trade show appointments. The APA plans to move away from appointments, replacing them with increased opportunities for suppliers and participants to connect and learn in open forums that involve both groups. That’s what they and their members want. Meanwhile, IMEX has strong evidence that many association planners find trade show appointments valuable and are happy to attend them, especially with the sweetener of low or no attendance fees (and sometimes even subsidized travel and accommodations).
As I write this, we are entering the fourth year of the COVID-19 pandemic which has been responsible for millions of deaths and long-term disabilities. Many more people are going to die and contract Long COVID. In addition, most current events are still dangerous to attend for people with disabilities and certain chronic illnesses. Under the circumstances, it’s shocking that the meeting industry has developed no widely-accepted standards for safer events.
But recently I learned about an effort to create and communicate simple, flexible standards for safer events: The Public Health Pledge.
“We’re starting our day full of hope!
Sometimes it feels lonely being COVID-conscious in a world that’s desperate to forget anything has changed.
But you are not alone. Far more people are concerned about COVID than let on. Sometimes they don’t speak up because of social pressure or fear of retaliation from an employer.
Started by Josh Simmons, an advocate for free and open-source software and a community organizer, The Public Health Pledge is both:
A public pledge by those involved in attending and organizing meetings to commit to meetings that have robust health and safety policies; and
An ongoing effort to define an “Event Badging Standard”: a set of simple but meaningful grades for health and safety protocols in place at any event to share with attendees.
The Public Health Pledge
The Public Health Pledge is short and simple.
Notice that the active measures used at an event are not specified in the Public Health Pledge. That’s the purpose of the other part of this initiative, the development of an Event Badging Standard.
The Event Badging Standard
The prototype Event Badging Standard includes six badges. Each badge represents a key health and safety category, and has a set of three possible grades that “indicate the quality of the protocols in place”:
A “Robust Policy” grade indicates that the event’s policies represent good practice as understood at the time this standard was written, and will be enforced.
An “Efforts Made” grade indicates that efforts are being made by the organizers, but there are factors that may increase risk for some attendees.
A “No Policy” grade indicates that meaningful policies have not been implemented.
My feedback on the current [version 2023-01] Event Badging Standard
I like these standards. And we need ’em.
But the elephant in the room is the mask exception for “attendees who are actively eating or drinking”.
Yes, this exception could be “robust” when outdoors or with excellent ventilation/filtering in place.
But in practice, event social activities are when most airborne infection occurs.
(Also, dancing while wearing masks, is rare in my experience, so I wonder if “robust” would apply to many events with an evening social with music.)
I would define “robust” masking as meaning:
EITHER making outdoor eating and drinking available
OR providing assurances of indoor air quality to ASHRAE recommendations (or international equivalents).
I have offered both options at in-person events I’ve designed/facilitated during the last three years. Many participants thanked me for doing this.
One small addition: having CO2 meters in key rooms and briefly explaining their readings at the event’s start helps with this kind of transparency. [Note: Belgium now requires CO2 meters in all public spaces.] Perhaps add this to the ventilation grade?
I sent this feedback to Josh. He immediately thanked me and added these ideas to the notes for the next revision.
Why the meeting industry needs health and safety event badge standards
We’ve been (rightly) fixated on COVID as a serious threat to human health and safety since 2020.
Besides the health impact of pandemics on all of us, I believe that the vast majority of event professionals these days want to create events that are inclusive and welcoming of diversity. If you do, Gina Häußge explains succinctly why we must make our meetings safe places for all attendees.
“For the record, I’m of the opinion that we can’t call our events inclusive and welcoming of diversity when we exclude people with disabilities or chronic illnesses (or their caregivers), who can’t risk getting infected by an airborne pathogen that is still in a pandemic state, even though the collective consciousness has decided to mimic ostriches, put their heads in the sand and pretend it’s 2019.” —Gina Häußge, February 1, 2023, Mastodon toot
At a minimum, we owe our attendees clear information about the safety protocols we have in place at every event. Published event badge standards provide this information for attendees. What they decide is up to them. But at least such standards give them the information they need to make an informed decision.
Refuse to source venues in states with anti-abortion laws.
Include clauses in future contracts that allow for cancellation if subsequent legislation in the event’s jurisdiction is in conflict with a client’s mission.
“Forty-three percent of the 281 planner respondents to NMG’s Flash Survey fielded from May 13 to May 17 said state-by-state abortion laws will impact their organizations’ site-selection decisions. Of those planners, more than 80 percent say they will favor states that allow abortion, with 54 percent reporting they “will not meet in states with anti-abortion laws.”
1. Refuse to source venues in states with anti-abortion laws
Many meeting planners have considerable influence on venue selection. If you’re one of them, you can support a woman’s right to bodily autonomy by refusing to source venues in states with anti-abortion laws. These laws are changing as some states rush to make abortion illegal. A good resource for current state policies is the Guttmacher Institute. The map below shows abortion policies and access as I write this; click on it to view the current status.
US state abortion policies and access as of 6/22/22. Click on graphic to see current map.
2. Include anti-discrimination clauses in future contracts
An excellent article by Northstar Meeting Group provides examples of anti-discrimination clauses in contracts. These can allow clients to cancel contracts when the legal situation in the venue’s jurisdiction changes between the time that the contract is signed and the event takes place. The article’s survey reports that 72% of planners are considering adding such clauses to their contracts going forward.
From Northstar Meeting Group May 13, 2022 survey.
Some say that venues in anti-abortion states will resist or refuse such changes. Even if that is the case, bringing up the issue makes such businesses aware that there is a cost to doing business in an anti-abortion environment. Many of the successful boycott examples I referenced above were aided by the support of businesses concerned about or experiencing the effect of local protests.
Meeting planners: support women’s rights!
State sanctions that force pregnant women to give birth regardless of circumstances are barbaric. We don’t force someone to donate a kidney to save the life of another person. We don’t even force the giving of an organ at the time of the donor’s death to save the life of another person. Anti-abortion laws, on the other hand, remove women’s bodily autonomy, inflicting risks and suffering without a woman’s consent. And the consequences are life-altering for the woman, to say the least.
Air quality has a significant effect on human health. During the COVID-19 pandemic, it has become an especially critical issue. Why? Because COVID-19 spreads via aerosols that can float in the air for minutes to hours. Although there is currently no commercially available way to measure the presence of COVID-19 in the air, I’ve written about how measuring carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations can act as a useful proxy for COVID-19 infection risk. Small, inexpensive CO2 meters are now widely available.
So when I took a deep (masked) breath and decided to accept an invitation to design and lead a two-day meeting industry leadership summit in Puerto Rico, I decided to bring my CO2 meter with me. What would I learn about the air quality in the airports, planes, and ground transportation I used, as well as my hotel and the summit’s convention center? Well, I uncovered significant air quality concerns in places that may surprise you. Read on to find out what I discovered. But first, a brief explanation of what CO2 measurements mean.
How do CO2 levels correlate with the risk for COVID-19 infection?
It’s complicated! Measurements of indoor CO2 concentrations can often be good indicators of airborne infection risk. But clear conclusions on the CO2 level corresponding to a given COVID-19 infection risk are currently lacking. Multiple factors influence the risk. These include exposure duration, the mixing of air in the vicinity, the exhalation volume and rate of infected individuals, and, of course, the use of masks, virus-removing air filtration, and UVC and far-UVC radiation. This article gives some idea of the complexities involved. The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) has summarized current thinking on indoor CO2. ASHRAE takes the position that “indoor CO2 concentrations do not provide an overall indication of IAQ [indoor air quality], but they can be a useful tool in IAQ assessments if users understand the limitations in these applications.”
More research is required, especially because of “the ubiquity of indoor concentrations of CO2 in excess of 1,000 [parts per million] ppm.” And ASHRAE reports that “indoor concentrations of CO2 greater than 1,000 ppm have been associated with increases in self-reported, nonspecific symptoms commonly referred to as sick building syndrome symptoms.” To summarize, currently, there is insufficient research suggesting CO2 levels that indicate a significantly increased risk for COVID-19 infection. However, many authorities have tentatively proposed maximum levels of around 1,000 ppm CO2 as guidelines.
From a REHVA (The Federation of European Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning) journal article on CO₂ monitoring and indoor air quality.
OK, enough of this; you probably want to know what I found. Here we go!
Flying
I flew JetBlue flights 261 and 462 between Boston (BOS) and San Juan (SJU). My outbound flight, on an Airbus A321, lasted 3 hours and 43 minutes. My return flight, on an Airbus A320, took 4 hours and 40 minutes. (Don’t ask.) On both flights, I had an aisle seat in row 15. As you can see from the photo at the top of this post, I perched my little CO2 meter on my knees when tray tables had to be up. The rest of the time, it nestled perfectly into the little tray table drink recess. Here’s an annotated graph of the CO2 readings I took on my outbound flight.
My key flight observations
Boarding the aircraft led to a large spike in CO2 levels. Levels increased sharply in the jetway as I approached the passenger door. Slowly walking down a packed aisle to my seat I saw readings around 2,000 ppm. Once in my seat, the levels dropped somewhat but were still high (1,600 ppm) when they closed the door.
Levels stayed high (above 1,500 ppm) while taxiing until we took off. We had been on the plane for about 50 minutes at this point.
I estimate that about 30% of the passengers were unmasked, as well as most of the flight attendants.
During the cruising portion of the flight, the CO2 level stayed at REHVA’s “upper range of reliable air quality” of 1,000 ppm. The level in the bathroom was 1,200 ppm.
Once we started our descent, levels rose a few hundred ppm. On landing, we were at 1,300 ppm.
During deplaning, levels soared again. I took the photo at the top of this post, showing a reading of 2,074 ppm, at this point.
As soon as they opened the passenger door, levels dropped to around 1,200 ppm.
On my return trip (which took close to five hours) I saw similar readings, except that:
The cruising flight CO2 level was significantly higher (1,200 – 1,400) ppm.
The boarding peak was lower (1,500 ppm).
The deplaning peak was an unsettling 2,400 ppm.
To summarize, these readings are troublesome. Aircraft ventilation systems reportedly filter out aerosols, assuming that the HEPA filters are regularly replaced. However, the close proximity of passengers (both flights were full) still allows people to infect others close to them, as this NY Times article illustrates. The high readings I saw indicate that in-flight ventilation was not fully operative during embarkation and deplaning on either flight. I am glad I wore a high-quality N95 mask during both.
Airports
BOS airport levels were around 600 ppm. At SJU I saw readings between 650 – 800 ppm. Both of these are acceptable. Neither airport was especially crowded, however, and I would be cautious about assuming it’s OK to go unmasked there.
Ground Transportation
This was a shocker to me. In the U.S. during the pandemic, when driving with others I’m used to having the car windows open, at least a little. Puerto Rico was hot and humid, and the vehicles I was in had the A/C on and windows closed. My client had arranged a car and driver to pick me up from the airport and drive me to the convention center for a couple of technical rehearsals and then to my hotel. Just the two of us in a Chevy Suburban quickly raised the CO2 level to around 1,500 ppm for the 30 minutes we were together. Luckily we were both masked.
I saw the same readings during my trip to the airport at the end of the event.
But I saw the highest readings during my travel in a shuttle bus bringing us to the opening reception. There were, perhaps, 20 of us on board. Readings spiked to over 3,000 ppm! And some of the passengers were unmasked.
The conference center
The conference center was far from maximum capacity and I only saw readings well below 1,000 ppm. We held the summit in four meeting rooms with high ceilings. We left the meeting room doors open, and my meter typically showed readings between 500 – 600 ppm. If the venue had been packed or the doors closed it might have been a different story.
My hotel
I was concerned about the air quality in my (large) hotel room because I expected it to have no openable windows due to San Juan’s climate, and this proved to be the case. Over the three nights I was there I noticed the same pattern. On entering the room during the day, readings were about 600 ppm. As evening approached, the readings slowly climbed to about 900 ppm.
I had reason to be concerned.
The increase in CO2 as evening approached was probably due to increased occupancy of nearby rooms. Building heating, ventilation, and cooling (HVAC) systems typically recirculate interior air, mixing together air from all the rooms in the building. So as guests retire to their rooms in the evening, the overall CO2 concentration in every room increases.
That means that although I was alone in my room I was breathing exhalations from other guests. If any of those guests had COVID-19, it’s possible that their aerosols would travel into the air I was breathing. There was nothing I could do to protect myself other than wearing a mask the whole time I was there (which obviously included sleeping!)
Commercial HVAC systems
Commercial HVAC systems include filters to remove dust and dirt. Typical HVAC filters will not stop COVID-19 aerosols unless they have been upgraded to MERV 13 or better (e.g. HEPA). They also need to be regularly replaced to work correctly.
Whether these mitigation measures have been performed at a hotel is hard to know. My hotel was modern, but that doesn’t mean its HVAC system was well-designed and safe. I have stayed at hundreds of hotels over the years. Some of them, based on the odor of the rooms, had ventilation problems of some kind. Paradoxically, the single-unit heating and cooling systems common in inexpensive lodgings could be safer because air entering the room only comes from outside.
Concerns like these have made me cautious about staying in accommodations that don’t have windows that can be opened. That wasn’t possible in Puerto Rico, and my CO2 monitor gave me at least some reassurance that air quality levels weren’t too bad. However, many commercial lodging offerings don’t offer this option. The inspection and, if necessary, re-engineering of hotel HVAC systems is an important step to protect guest health. Yes, it costs money, but if the owners have done this work they should publicize it as a reason to stay.
As I write this, I’ve been isolating for four days since my return and just performed my fourth daily rapid antigen test. All have been negative. So it looks like I’ve escaped getting COVID-19 during my first major travel since the pandemic began. I recommend travelers purchase an inexpensive CO2 meter and bring it with them.
I hope the information I’ve shared in this post is helpful in warning other travelers of potentially dangerous environments. COVID-19 is far from over. As the pandemic continues, monitor your air quality while traveling—and mask up.
The old meeting industry normal is long over, and many event professionals are still hoping and waiting for a new normal.
In October 2020 I wrote two posts [1, 2] about what a meeting industry new normal might look like. As I write this in February 2022, two years have passed since the COVID-19 pandemic devastated the world and the event industry. It’s time to take another look. How have my predictions held up? And what does the future hold?
Looking back
Six months into the pandemic, I wrote that three fundamental things had to happen for everything to go as well as possible in the global fight against the coronavirus.
1. “If we’re really lucky, we’ll have a safe, inexpensive, effective vaccine sometime before the end of 2021.”
Even if no further variants appear, the above factors mean that COVID-19 is here to stay for the indefinite future. As I write, for example, South Korea is experiencing a massive surge, the largest of the entire pandemic. The dominant COVID-19 variants are so contagious that it’s currently impossible to prevent further spread and outbreaks until most of the world population is adequately vaccinated or builds up enough (weaker) immunity through repeated infections.
We may eventually tame the pandemic by developing effective and inexpensive antivirals and making them widely available to those contracting COVID-19. However, the virus is likely to develop resistance to such drugs, which are currently in short supply and expensive, so continued R&D will be needed.
Finally, it’s important to remember that we still do not understand the health impact of long covid. The American Medical Association estimates that “anywhere from 15% to 80% of patients might experience long COVID after recovering—even if they weren’t very sick in the first place”. I have friends and family that are still suffering serious effects of long covid—you probably have too. Now vaccines and better treatments have reduced the risk of dying from COVID-19. But that doesn’t mean we can dismiss its significant long-term health consequences going forward.
Holding in-person meetings: what do we now know?
Here’s a quick overview of what I see as the relative risks involved in attending in-person meetings at this point. Two important caveats are that I’m assuming travelers:
Are fully vaccinated; and
Use good quality masks when in public enclosed spaces.
Risks of serious illness for the unvaccinated are at least an order of magnitude higher. See below for situations when masks cannot be worn.
Travel
Airline travel seems reasonably safe these days. Airlines claim “cabin air is refreshed 20-30 times an hour.” If correct, this is more than adequate. The main exposure risks occur during boarding and deplaning when in-flight airplane ventilation systems are not operating. However, I would avoid long plane flights for now if possible, as it’s somewhat risky to unmask to eat or drink on a plane.
Train travel has a similar risk exposure. Amtrak says that its “trains are equipped with onboard filtration systems with a fresh air exchange rate every 4-5 minutes”. Again, if accurate, this is more than adequate.
If attendees and staff follow precautions, traveling to and from meetings is not as high-risk as the following activities.
Accommodations
As described below, very few hotels (and venues) seem to have implemented ASHRAE’S building readiness standards for air quality in their properties. Sleeping in a hotel room when one can’t wear a mask has an unknown and potentially high risk for COVID-19 infection unless you can obtain fresh air by opening windows. Consequently, I currently prefer to stay in self-contained Airbnb properties. There, I can be confident that air from an unknown source won’t contaminate indoor air.
Dining and socializing
Currently, eating and drinking indoors is quite risky unless the location has upgraded its HVAC systems to adequately filter COVID, the space has very high ceilings, or copious fresh outdoor air is available from open windows.
Understandably, people want to connect at in-person meetings. We are drawn to do this during meals and socials where masks cannot be or are not worn. Which can lead to consequences like this:
“…now myself and at least 25% of our participants are sick with COVID. I am hearing from someone else every day…All the precautions in the world don’t really matter if you abandon them when people eat and drink. We all know this yet we are all still doing it for the most part.“
—Quote from a meeting planner’s January 2022 conference report
I’ve heard reports of this natural but hazardous behavior at many conferences held over the last couple of years. Given the ease of transmission of dominant COVID-19 variants, the best way to minimize such risks is to hold meals and socials outdoors. Obviously, this is not always practical.
Conclusions
Currently, hardly any in-person events report post-event attendee and staff COVID cases. In many cases, there is no apparent effort made to perform post-event case tracking.
Consequently, while we all desire in-person meetings, I think it’s incumbent on every event stakeholder to consider the effect of their event on the health of participants and staff and determine whether, in good conscience, the meeting should best take place in-person or online.
Looking forward: What the meeting industry still needs to do
Two years after COVID-19 started, we know what to do to keep in-person meetings safe. Currently, it’s still critical that vaccination and masking requirements are in place for events to occur safely. Yet the meeting and hospitality industries still have their heads in the sand in one crucial safety area.
Upgrade air quality in venues and accommodations
As we start thinking about returning to in-person events, it’s crucial to check that venues are upgrading their HVAC systems to handle potentially virus-infused air. This does not appear to be happening! Since I wrote at length about this important safety requirement back in April 2021, I have only heard of one additional venue that is providing COVID-safe ventilation — the Javits Center in New York City. [Heard of others? Let me know, either directly or via comments on this post!]
Let me put this in simple terms. COVID-19 is here to stay for the indefinite future. Would you want to stay in a hotel room with ventilation that includes air from the room next door where a COVID-positive person is sleeping? Do you want to mingle, unmasked, during a meeting social with strangers where the ventilation rate is inadequate to clear the air of COVID-19 aerosols? Even if you’re cavalier about such infection risks, we have a duty of care to attendees and staff.
Right now, updating venue ventilation for COVID-19 is a competitive advantage. Being able to say a property is compliant with current ventilation guidance is a great selling point, as the Javits Center illustrates.
Plan for future COVID-19 variants (and new pandemics)
To date, we’ve had several COVID-19 variants play havoc with our in-person meeting plans. We now need to assume that another new dominant variant could appear at any time.
Dominance occurs because a new variant is more transmissible than older ones. A dominant variant may or may not cause more severe disease than other variants.
What this means is that we now need backup plans for switching in-person meetings that can’t be postponed to online formats at relatively short notice. Yes, our work just got even more complicated than it already was. Meetings sure aren’t getting any easier to plan!
Conclusions for a new meeting industry normal
Finally, it should be clear that at this point I’m still cautious about returning to in-person meetings. Millions of people—the elderly, the immunocompromised, and young children who cannot yet be vaccinated—are particularly vulnerable to severe consequences if they catch COVID-19. Some may have to wear masks for the rest of their lives. Premature removal of mask and vaccination mandates at meetings will cause additional, possibly fatal illnesses amongst this population. I hope meeting planners do not rush to relax these important mandates in the mistaken belief that we have reached or are about to return to the old meeting normal.
My concluding paragraph from Part 2 of these posts still applies:
“We are living in unprecedented times. Experimenting with new approaches to designing and convening meetings is essential. What may be even harder is discovering what works and adopting it, rather than staying locked in the old comfortable ways of making meetings. Meetings will continue to occur, and the meeting industry will survive. But don’t passively buy into the myth of a new meeting industry normal. That is if you want to remain a player in one of the most important industries the human race has created.”
Liz Latham, co-founder of Club Ichi and a brilliant event marketer, recently shared an intriguing idea she plans to test to increase attendance at her free events.
This one-day workshop offers a hands-on opportunity to learn through direct experience of participatory meeting formats and techniques. Participants will engage in cycles of interactive experiences followed by debriefs, interspersed with short “theory bites” that provide critical background knowledge and concepts. These formats will be introduced in the approximate order they might appear during a typical participatory and connection-rich event.
Event attendees need to be aware of the growing trend of unannounced use of facial analysis technology at meetings. And if you plan to attend the 
Currently, no commercial sensors exist that can monitor the concentrations of infectious viruses in the air in real time. However, indoor carbon dioxide (CO₂) concentrations — easily measurable with inexpensive hand-held devices — provide a good proxy for how much of the air we breathe is being exhaled by other people who may be infected. Now, there’s a new wrinkle. Research published in Nature in April 2024 concludes that 
For heaven’s sake! 
As I write this, we are entering the fourth year of the COVID-19 pandemic which has been responsible for millions of deaths and long-term disabilities. Many more people are going to die and contract Long COVID. In addition, most current events are still dangerous to attend for people with disabilities and certain chronic illnesses. Under the circumstances, it’s shocking that the meeting industry has developed no widely-accepted standards for safer events.
Air quality has a significant effect on human health. During the COVID-19 pandemic, it has become an especially critical issue. Why? Because COVID-19 spreads via aerosols that can float in the air for minutes to hours. Although there is currently no commercially available way to measure the presence of COVID-19 in the air, I’ve written about how 
The old meeting industry normal is long over, and many event professionals are still hoping and waiting for a new normal.