Come together: like-minded associations are partnering to host joint meetings and seeing promising results.

WHEN THE HEALTH INDUSTRY DISTRIBUTORS Association, Alexandria, Virginia, held its annual trade show last month in Chicago, it marked the second consecutive year that Physician Sales and Service, Jacksonville, Florida, held its national sales meeting in conjunction with HIDA's event. By colocating its meeting, PSS, one of HIDA's largest members, saves money and time for its vendors, most of whom would have attended both shows in two different cities. Although each organization develops educational programming separately, the meeting schedules coincide to ensure that PSS can participate on HIDA's trade show floor.

"PSS's group is exactly what a lot of our exhibitors want to see: sales reps, management, and active companies that are interested in our exhibitors' products," explains Lesley Walsh, HIDA's vice president of industry relations and trade show. "What PSS brings is a very large audience. That is a big benefit for our exhibitors. For PSS, it's a cost savings and they are getting a big industrywide presence by being active and visible at our trade show."

Whether they take the colocating route and hold meetings concurrently or actually divide responsibilities for programming and share financial risks and costs equally, associations are exploring the benefits of joint meetings. In light of the economic toll September 11 took on the meetings industry, some association executives are looking at joint meetings as a cost-savings measure and a means of reducing travel for members. Others, as Walsh points out, are simply "looking for ways to continue to boost attendance and bring in more members."

Your place or mine?

In HIDA's case, each organization has its own meeting planning staff and pays for its own event. HIDA works closely with PSS to secure room blocks and meeting space, and also provides shuttle service to facilitate transportation between the PSS meeting and the HIDA trade show. "As members of our association, they do not have to pay to access our trade show floor," Walsh notes. "And they are able to take advantage of our special room rates negotiated for a much larger group. Beyond that, however, PSS is pretty much on its own financially.

Other organizations that colocate their meetings do have some overlap in programming. The National Council of Youth Sports (NCYS), Stuart, Florida, reached an agreement with TEAMS: Travel, Events And Management in Sports, an annual conference and trade show for the sports event industry organized by Sports Travel magazine, Los Angeles, to hold its annual meeting in conjunction with TEAMS.

"We are incorporating programming that would occur at NCYS's annual meeting into our schedule and also allowing anyone who would have been an exhibitor at their meeting to be an exhibitor at our larger trade show," explains Tim Schneider, publisher of Sports Travel and Association News. "Financially, we structured our arrangement such that NCYS will come out ahead of where they would have been had they held their meeting separately. We also hope to be able to say the same thing."

At press time, Schneider expected 750 attendees at the October conference in Chicago, which would represent a 15 percent growth over the previous year's attendance. Schneider worked with NCYS Executive Director Sally Cunningham to create breakout sessions that were branded as an NCYS track but open to TEAMS general attendees as well. This allows prospective members to be exposed to NCYS, Schneider points out. Parts of the conference, however, are branded under that organization's name and open only to NCYS members while other parts are branded under the TEAMS logo.

"In our publicity for the event, which includes direct mail, e-mail blasts, and broadcast faxes, we have highlighted this relationship," he says. "We include the NCYS logo on all of our mailings. In its promotion, NCYS includes the benefits of full participation in the TEAMS conference as another reason why members should attend. NCYS is able to benefit from the literature we create, and we're able to benefit from having access to their membership base. We're really trying to structure a win-win arrangement."

Conducting a colocated event increases the amount of communication that's necessary, he continues, because you are building a relationship and making joint decisions. During the months of negotiations, the organizations gained a better understanding of each other. "It's important to have a baseline knowledge of each other's goals," Schneider advises. "We tried to be as specific as possible in the agreement about which parts they would be responsible for and tried to eliminate things we thought would come up as issues.

"The key thing is communication and honest sharing of what the goals and objectives are for each organization," he adds. "Then it's making sure those goals are compatible enough that both organizations will realize them in this cooperative setting." Schneider's group planned to survey NCYS members after the event to determine whether the two organizations will meet in conjunction again next year.

Joining forces

The impetus for conducting joint meetings is often simply convenience--for members and for the organizations themselves. For associations that have similar missions and serve members with similar needs, combining resources to appeal to a wider audience can save time--and sometimes money--for everyone involved. In 1996, three appraisal societies signed an agreement to sponsor a joint conference for the profession and divided the responsibilities among the groups: the American Society of Appraisers, Herndon, Virginia; the Appraisal Institute, Chicago; and the American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers, Denver. ASA took the lead on planning and managing the conference and acting as bookkeeper; the Appraisal Institute was responsible for the educational programming; and ASFMRA handled the trade show.

"We spent three years after the contract was signed having meetings among our staffs and volunteers at regular intervals to design the conference," recalls Edwin Baker, executive vice president of ASA. "The conference included meetings of six appraisal societies, a three-day education program supported by the sponsoring organizations and 12 others, and social events. A significant part of what went on during that process was cultural-- getting the three organizations to understand how the others worked. That was the biggest challenge."

The meeting, Valuation 2000, held at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas in the summer of 2000, attracted about 1,750 attendees--a major accomplishment, according to Baker. The associations agreed to keep society affiliations off of participant name badges as well as speaker and course identification. Baker believes this resulted in registrants signing up for courses outside their areas of expertise.

"We had the benefit of an appraisal profession where most of the members do the same thing even though they belong to different societies," Baker says. "What we were putting on was equally attractive to everyone. Although all parties regard the event as a success, Baker says the conference just barely broke even. "Even though there wasn't a profit to split at the end," he adds, "it was worth the investment."

All three associations are currently planning another joint meeting in 2005. They plan to market more aggressively, perhaps expanding to include an international audience. Baker contends that the conference didn't do well financially because of "the amount of time and money that was spent up front getting to know each other, rather than just focusing on the conference planning. It was felt that having the various society annual meetings in conjunction with the education program added complexity and cost that detracted from the overall program." Making these adjustments next time around and focusing solely on the three-day educational program will improve results, he believes.

Baker and the other executives are also recommending that the conference meeting planning and trade show be outsourced in the future. "The cost savings in hassle and grief will more than pay for the cost of outsourcing," he notes. "It came off in our case [dividing responsibilities among parties] but at a huge cost in time and energy." He suggests that executives considering joint meetings "start planning a long time in advance. It's going to take longer than anybody believes.

"Be sure that all of the partners really have the same goal: to advance something bigger than the individual societies," he continues. "And offer a program that is really attractive to members of all of the groups."

Careful deliberation. As with any partnership, it's important to consider the caveats before leaping in. Executives concur that a written agreement is crucial to spell out the terms of the arrangement. Even with a contract in place, however, issues can surface. The National Association of Trial Lawyer Executives, Tallahassee, Florida, and the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, Washington, D.C., have been holding meetings concurrently since the 1970s. "We recognized that many of our members would also have functions at ATLA meetings, so it was a matter of convenience and making the logistics easy on our members," says Kathleen Wilson, CAE, NATLE executive director.

NATLE develops its own program, geared toward executive directors of state and local associations, but opens sessions to ATLA members, who are attorneys. NATLE collects its own registration fees, but ATLA counts those attendees toward its room block. Wilson concedes that the arrangement doesn't always work to NATLE's advantage.

"The difficulty is that because ATLA is such a large meeting, they go in and take over the hotel space," she explains. "It really puts our organization at the mercy of ATLA when it comes time to plan meeting space and to get the rooms we need. On our own, we can't compete--we do a meeting that would only draw 100 participants; ATLA draws 3,000 participants."

Wilson acknowledges that by holding its meeting concurrently, NATLE strengthens its relationship with the national organization and increases attendance at its own meeting. But, she notes, "I cannot go in and negotiate for space or audiovisual needs. There is no negotiating that goes on on my part. We're at the mercy of what has already been contracted for." Other conditions of the arrangement: NATLE members must be registered for the ATLA meeting to be eligible for accommodations in the room block, and NATLE cannot compete with ATLA by holding its own trade show. Although that does limit one potential revenue source for NATLE, the organization is still able to get sponsors.

Wilson encourages associations to consider a joint meeting arrangement and recommends getting involved early on in the negotiating stages to articulate your meeting space needs. "If you are negotiating five years out, your organization's needs are going to grow," she points out. "Anticipate the growth of your meeting. It requires lots of open communication."

She advises national organizations to pursue joint meeting arrangements with state and regional associations. "There can be many advantages that outweigh the disadvantages," she says. "By offering a forum to share ideas, the national organization is actually contributing to its own success."

Hands across the water

Joint meetings can be difficult to coordinate when the host associations are located in different cities in the United States and the meeting is held at yet another location. But logistics become even trickier when you add an international component to the mix. The International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine (ISMRM), Berkeley, California, periodically holds its annual meeting outside of North America, and on three occasions the organization held joint meetings with its European counterpart, the European Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine and Biology (ESMRMB), Vienna, Austria.

"This was something we tried different models for and finally came to the model we ended up using most successfully in 2001," says ISMRM Executive Director Jane Tiemann. "ISMRM is significantly larger in membership, staff size, and budget [than ESMRMB], so that influenced the model we used. Because of that, it came to be most successful for our staff to take on all of the responsibility for the administrative aspects of the meeting. In addition, our leadership structure and scientific program committee had the major responsibility for putting the programming together."

The organizations tried a profit-sharing arrangement one year without much success. Last year ISMRM paid the expenses and received all of the revenue, then paid ESMRMB a fixed sum. The meeting did show a profit, which was in line with ISMRM annual meetings held in the United States. Tiemann says that they designed marketing efforts to give equal visibility to both groups.

The Telecommunications Industry Association, Arlington, Virginia, holds its annual trade show, SUPERCOMM, in the United States, but because its members are interested in doing business in developing countries, the conference has international appeal. TIA decided it would be beneficial to invite representatives from those developing markets to attend the event, Which is the world's premier annual communication and information technology exhibition and conference. For the past three years, TIA has selected one region to be the focus of SUPERCOMM. Beginning in 2000 with a focus on the Asia-Pacific region, TIA partnered with the International Telecommunication Union, Geneva, a United Nations agency that coordinates telecommunication activities around the globe and assists developing countries with telecommunication needs.

"The idea was to leverage the strength of the ITU brand and financial resources with the SUPERCOMM brand and our members' interest in doing business in emerging markets," says Eric Nelson, TIA's vice president of global network marketing. "We took on much of the financial risk and developed most of the programming content, since we are experts in the business issues. ITU invited government officials from developing countries and paid for their travel costs and accommodations.

"The member companies that participated found it useful because they could meet with decision makers from specific regions," Nelson explains. "ITU found it valuable because they learned what the industry priorities are when doing business abroad. I think the people who benefited the most were the officials who came and heard what the private sector is looking for in terms of business opportunities."

After a successful second joint conference on Latin American markets, ITU suggested focusing on Africa for SUPERCOMM 2002. TIA invited another organization with expertise in that area to host the meeting, making it a three-way partnership. That event was the second largest in the show's history. The meetings, not intended to be profit centers, generally come close to breaking even.

Common ground. ITU's senior leaders were enthusiastic about the joint meeting, but Nelson admits that once the planning was delegated they ran into some difficulties. "It was a challenge to blend the two cultures of the organizations," he says. "We come from different perspectives." Once they developed trust and understanding, each event became easier.

Nelson suggests partnering with an organization with complementary interests and planning at least a year in advance. "Look for an organization that represents the customers of your members or has other attributes that are complementary to your own," he advises. "Be willing to be flexible. Make sure the conference suits both organizations' needs as much as possible."

Tiemann says ISMRM's leadership is willing to consider future partnerships with other organizations because they have a model that works and feedback from attendees has been positive. "For the European society, which has a much smaller meeting on a normal basis, this gives its members access to a much larger, more complex meeting," she points out. "This arrangement allows them to have that without losing their own identity."

The 2001 event went smoothly, but Tiemann acknowledges that "sometimes misunderstandings may occur simply because of cultural differences. We've also sometimes had a bit of difficulty getting responses because of the time difference, or because their staff sets priorities differently." She says a written agreement that spells out everything from the name of the meeting to the financial model is a must.

"If you can point to an agreement, the problems go away," she contends. "I would urge that strongly. It's also important to keep in mind that Ilyour partner'sI organizational culture may be somewhat different from yours. You have to have an open mind to be sure that you work out a solution that's comfortable for both societies."

RELATED ARTICLE: The Do's and Don'ts OF GOING DUTCH 

Here is some basic advice from association executives about planning and conducting joint meetings:

DO sign a contract that spells out everything from the venue to the financial model to each organization's specific responsibilities. Have general counsel at one or both associations review it.

DON'T underestimate the amount of time and resources it takes to coordinate the logistics of a joint meeting. Plan in advance--anywhere from one year to five years out.

DO communicate often and clearly articulate goals to ensure that the event meets the needs of everyone involved.

DON'T take on more responsibility than your staff can handle. It may be necessary to scale back or outsource some of the planning.

DO be sensitive to cultural differences between organizations and respect your partner's way of doing business.

The beginning of a beautiful partnership

Jim Moody 

Partnerships often evolve out of necessity. Sometimes, though, relationships provide fertile ground for partnerships to grow and thrive.

Linda Chreno, CAE, was hired as executive director of the Florida Society of Association Executives, Tallahassee, not long after I took over as executive director of the Georgia Society of Association Executives, Tucker. We met at an ASAE meeting and realized we had much in common. We were new in our jobs, our societies were of similar size, we shared many associate members, and our commitment to raise the standard of professionalism in association management was strong.

After a few months of sharing successes and setbacks, our personal relationship was cemented. Then Linda mentioned that we should try to plan a program together to take advantage of our geographical proximity. I was a little hesitant because business sometimes gets in the way of relationships, and my friendship with Linda was one I wasn't willing to lose. Nevertheless, I saw value for GSAE in the proposition, and I agreed to move forward.

We thought it was important to do something significant that would attract leaders from both associations, and we settled on a program that would help association executives and their elected officers form their own partnerships. While ASAE offers an excellent symposium for chief staff and chief elected officers, the expense puts it out of reach for many of our members. We decided to conduct a program similar to ASAE's but focused more on state and regional associations. We called it the Association Leadership Symposium.

We forged our plans at ASAE's Management and Technology Conferences in 2001. We agreed on a speaker and developed a "wish list" of places to hold the meeting. Since we share many members of the hospitality community as corporate members, it was important to hold the meeting in a location that had supported both of us in the past. We also wanted to hold the meeting in a location easily accessible to both groups of members.

But perhaps the most important decision we made was to share the profit or loss evenly. We deliberately chose not to credit each society for members in attendance when calculating profit. All registration and sponsorship money would flow into one pot and all expenses would be paid from that same pot. We did not fully load the cost of staff and other indirect expenses--we presumed from the beginning that the work would be evenly divided between the two societies. We kept it simple, and it worked well.

When we divided the responsibilities, Linda agreed to conduct negotiations with the hotel and work with the speaker on the curriculum. I agreed to develop the registration materials and marketing copy. GSAE would accept all the registration money, supply the badges, pay the bills, and provide a detailed accounting to FSAE. We agreed to market the meeting to our own members and to seek sponsors from among our corporate members. And we promised to keep each other informed at every step of the way.

We settled on a speaker, Bob Harris, CAE, who is well known in Georgia and Florida. The meeting would be held at Marriott's Bay Point Resort in Panama City Beach, Florida. Both the property and the CVB actively support FSAE and GSAE. The resort location--two hours from Tallahassee and five hours from Atlanta--worked well for both of us. Linda and I were both able to work with the property and CVB to encourage their help with the cost. Their willingness to provide financial help made a tremendous difference in the final financial reports.

We were not successful, however, in seeking other corporate support. Because of the significant support we received from the resort and the CVB, we were uncomfortable asking others in the hospitality industry to sponsor the meeting. And since the attendees were from two states, sponsorship would only make sense to those who served both the Georgia and Florida markets. These factors, coupled with the post-September 11 downturn, left us without other corporate support.

The economic slowdown also cut into our attendance. Despite considerable marketing efforts and the presence of a well-respected speaker at a desirable location, we were able to attract only about 30 attendees. Fortunately, the registration fees and the help from the resort and CVB allowed us to break even. In retrospect, if either of us had conducted this meeting alone, we would have lost money.

Despite the financial difficulties, our efforts were justified when we reviewed the evaluations. The comments were overwhelmingly positive. Many of the association executives in attendance begged us to conduct the program annually. We took that to heart; Linda and I are already planning the 2003 Association Leadership Symposium.

Jim Moody, CAE, is executive director of the Georgia Society of Association Executives, Tucker. E-mail: [e-mail].

Jane Eisinger is associate editor of ASSOCIATION MANAGEMENT. E-mail:jeisinger @asaenet.org.