Conference & Incentive Travel is the UK's premier meetings magazine, bringing you all the news, comment and analysis on this highly creative and stimulating sector. Now it's your chance to make your views on the industry count.

Want to give your opinion of a particular venue or destination, contribute to an ongoing debate or make a suggestion for improved best practices? Whatever your point of view, CIT would like to hear from you. To submit a letter to the Editor, simply click here. As well as our online selection, the best letters will also be published in the magazine.

Nigel Cooper rightly points out that small agencies will always thrive on the back of good customer relationships and excellent service (C&IT, June 2006).

BBL Events is a relatively small agency based in Wiltshire, yet we have worked as event managers for Microsoft for more than five years, organising upwards of 300 events a year. In fact, all of our customers are large corporations.

As Nigel states, most projects rely on trust and personal relationships, which create a level playing field for both large and small agencies. Smaller agencies have proved that size isn’t pivotal to success.

A point that Nigel neglects to make is that smaller agencies don’t have costly layers of management and the other trappings of large scale. Therefore, along with our professionalism and efficiency (our clients’ words, not ours), we can offer real value for money. We find that large clients can see that this makes a good business case and, in our experience, are relatively open-minded in the large/small agency debate.

Mergers and takeovers may continue to swirl around the top end of the market, but it’s excellence of delivery that counts in the events business and I would say that that is something smaller agencies are more likely to deliver – not less.

In the wake of the decision to merge the AEV and the EVA, and the still-warm merger of the ITMA and the CEA, is it time for our industry to stand back and consider the changing nature of the marketplace, possibly with a view to a further consolidation of trade associations?

With audiences demanding a rich and varied experience, the lines that separate our industry sectors are blurring.

We are seeing the growth of themed events as a reaction to a demand for richer content. That the industry is responding to demand is underlined by the increasing amount of ‘hybrid’ events that we are hosting – exhibitions that are introducing conferences and conferences that are becoming exhibitions.

Of course, to support the growth of the hybrids, venues have to work even more closely with customers, be flexible in

how they offer their space and in the support they provide.

Representation is key to the future of our industry. We must learn and use the language of our competitor marketing media and represent events in such a way that our audiences – brands, businesses, agencies – understand their worth.

If we agree that the lines are blurring and that it is no longer important which part of the mix takes the lead, then do we need as many separate association voices? Are we confusing the messages?

As author of an industry trends and spends survey, I am once again amazed at the lack of interest in the survey shown by end-user corporate buyers and their dreaded procurement departments.

I read frequently in C&IT about the need to measure ROI and for supplier and event evaluation and wonder how they achieve this?

I would have thought that the selection process for suppliers has to incorporate a number of aspects. Alongside creativity and the ability to physically fulfil the project, surely the finances and past financial performance of the agency against the industry benchmark must be a consideration? If for no other reason, this provides the customer with a reasoned basis on which to negotiate the fee.

One recurrent theme is emerging as an example of profligate waste because of corporates’ efforts to be seen to be saving money.

Clients put work out to tender so they can achieve competitive rates, meet their internal procurement requirements and encourage agencies to demonstrate that they understand the client and its objectives. F air enough.

However, as things are now, this regularly places agencies, DMCs, bureaux, venues, hotels and others in daft and costly situations. In one case, 12 organisations were asked to pitch for the same piece of work. So 12 agencies and DMCs all chased the same venues, convention bureaux and suppliers. In turn, they had to create individual responses to 12 slightly different briefs because the customer has specified non-disclosure.

The result? A wasteful, low margin-producing exercise that gave little opportunity to add value, severely tested relationships and left every supplier in the chain frustrated.

Okay, so 12 tenders may be extreme, but six is not unusual. What do corporate buyers actually believe they gain through this? Have they figured out who pays for it in the long term? Perhaps neither question is genuinely important to them.

Maybe, more agencies should be saying ‘No’ to pitch lists of five, six or more, and, for pitches of this size, the buyer should be required to suspend non-disclosure.