Nightlife and shopping were once thought to influence meeting planners to book in certain markets, but data from the Destination MAP survey shows otherwise.

Nightlife, shopping, outdoor recreation opportunities—hoteliers often tout such offerings like feathers on a peacock in their bids to woo meeting planners to a particular destination or market. But do such efforts bear fruit?

Not by a long shot, according to results from STR’s 2013 Destination MAP, the most recent data available, which surveys meeting planners in the largest cities in the United States and Canada.

The above were among those cited least often by planners when asked to name considerations that were “very important” to geographic site selection.

The top five least-important entries:

destination’s greening policies/practices (named as “very important” by 10% of survey respondents);

nightlife (13%);

outdoor recreation opportunities (17%);

good shopping (18%); and

a good place to take family (19%).

Chris Crenshaw, VP of strategic development at STR, shared these and other insights during a presentation titled “The voice of the meeting planner” during the 6th annual Hotel Data Conference, hosted by STR and Hotel News Now. (STR is the parent company of HNN.)

Here are five other highlights gleaned from the presentation:

1. ‘Good hotels’ is the most important consideration in geographic site selection

The consideration was cited as “very important” by 87% of Destination MAP survey respondents.

 “Good hotels” is relative and based either on limited past experience or general perception, which may or may not be accurate, Crenshaw said.

San Francisco; Las Vegas; and Orlando, Florida, were ranked as the top three markets by good hotels. San Jose, California; San Juan, Puerto Rico; and Jacksonville, Florida, were ranked as the bottom three.

After “good hotels,” three considerations were tied for second with 81% of respondents naming them “very important”: travel costs to location; food and lodging costs; and convenient airline service.

Rounding out the top five was “easy for delegates to get to,” cited by 80% of respondents.

 “Recreational is on the bottom of the list for the most part, and logistical is on the top of the list for the most part,” Crenshaw said. “That makes sense, because logistical is where most of your costs are tied.”

2. Attendees play big role in hotel selection

Past experience was the No. 1 factor (at 92%) when choosing a specific hotel within the broader market or destination.

Somewhat more surprising, Crenshaw said, was the No. 2 consideration: attendee feedback.

Hoteliers do a good job of taking care of meeting planners and staff during conferences and events, but they often treat attendees as numbers.

“We don’t give them the same attention as we do the transient,” often because they’re paying a lower rate and likely will not come back for business or leisure, Crenshaw explained. “But know that that’s the No. 2 most-important aspect in site selection.

 “Does that change how you focus on the individual meeting attendee’s experience while they’re there for the group because they have such a loud voice and are so important in the site selection process?”

3. Dirty hotel? Don’t expect meetings demand

“Unsanitary conditions” (94%) was the consideration most likely to rule out a meeting site, according to the survey. 

Other negative influencers included: exorbitant costs (89%), high crime rate (85%), high cost to get there (75%) and no concessions (66%).

4. Wi-Fi matters

Of the participants in the 2009 Destination MAP survey, 46% required Wi-Fi at their largest meeting/event. That percentage increased to 57% during 2011.

Most recently? More than nine of 10 (94%) meeting planners said it was a requirement.

Crenshaw said he was less surprised with the high percentage for that attribute than he was its significant pace of growth—the largest of all attributes measured in the survey. The variance reflects how quickly certain technology can take hold, he said.

5. Pass on print

“Most of our money … from a marketing perspective is going into either online or print, and print is having a very little return on the site selection process,” Crenshaw said.

Only 2% of meeting planners said direct mail promotions had any influence in their site selection process. Slightly more effective were: trade magazine advertising (6%); newspaper articles (9%); and trade magazine articles (10%).

Digital sources ranked much higher, including hotel websites (66%); destination websites (59%); and hotel review sites (53%).