by Bruce Harris

The impact that change has on planners can differ greatly from the impact felt by hotels. It's no wonder that issues relating to change permeate today's hotel contracts. Battles are being constantly fought at the negotiation and contract level to deter one party of the contract from gaining the ability to make a change that will economically disadvantage the other party. For example – hotels demand the right to move meeting space, based on a change in guest room pick-up. Hoteliers are trying to provide flexibility so they can move the planner's space to accommodate another group or to protect themselves if the planner's group does not achieve its room block, thereby forcing the hotel to sell the remaining rooms. To sell those extra guest rooms, hotels need meeting space to go with those rooms. The group that non-performs is an excellent candidate from which to get that space, and most likely will have meeting space taken from their block.

Planners, on the other hand, fight this mandatory release of space because it lets the hotel unilaterally choose what space the planner will get. There is little likelihood that the planner will agree with the hotel's re-assignment of space. No planner can allow his or her meeting's success to rest solely in the hands of the person at the hotel who decides which space to take back. Obviously, capable planners never allow a unilateral release of space by hotels and, therefore, strike any such terminology from their contract.

When hotels "reassign" space, mass confusion reigns. Rarely do hotels offer to reprint programs (assuming that there was sufficient time). The standard solution is to have someone standing at the doors of the original meeting rooms, redirecting attendees to a new location. The negative results from these meeting room changes are rarely communicated back to the hotel. Hoteliers don't sit in the ensuing board meeting to deflect the criticism that rains down upon the innocent planner. These changes put meeting managers at risk, and many are very unhappy about it.

But it works both ways. Hotels are not the sole culprit in the "change" scenario. Groups, sometimes inadvertently, place hotels in impossible positions. For example, a traditional four-night convention might be reduced to three nights. Though the space was booked many years in advance, this change might not be decided until one year out. The result? Despite the 12-month "window," if the hotel has sold space immediately in front of and behind the group's dates, the rooms will be almost impossible to sell! Take a look at the accompanying chart. Group '0' has booked 600 rooms arriving Sunday and out Wednesday. Group 'X' was holding a block of 500 rooms arriving Wednesday and departing Sunday... until a board decision to reduce the meeting from four days to three. In order to preserve its discounted airfare, the group elects to release its Wednesday block. The hotel must now find a group (or series of groups) that requires guest rooms for only one night. These groups are rare indeed. (While seminars fit the bill, they generally require a disproportionate amount of meeting space for guest rooms used.) The hotel's only alternative is the individual traveler (business or leisure). The chart shows what the hotel traditionally picks up in individual travel during the week. (Note: Contract business is where a corporation has committed to a certain amount of guest rooms at a hotel for each night of the week.) In this example, 200 rooms is the number traditionally sold to individuals and contract business on the peak nights of Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. There is almost no chance of selling the 500 released rooms Wednesday because the hotel was not projecting individual travel and contract rooms of over 200. These extra 500 rooms will go unsold. The loss to the hotel, if the rate is $140 a night, is $70,000 not including the food and beverage revenue that would have been generated!

A change made to save money for the association may inflict severe economic punishment on the hotel. This helps explain why some hotel contracts now include attrition clauses based on total room nights used.

There's one other "change" that infuriates hoteliers and constantly muddies the relationship with planners. It starts with groups that knowingly overstate their room requirements and food and beverage usage. These inflated figures are leveraged to obtain additional concessions. The expectation is that the negotiated concessions will remain in place when the estimates are later reduced.

This puts hotel salespeople in a "no-win" situation, caught between the planner and hotel management, to whom they are accountable. They become angered and embarrassed, and rightfully so. Planners who knowingly employ this strategy "late changes" have truly stepped over the ethical line.

Meeting managers have their own fears about hotel-oriented "change," not the least of which is evident when the hotel over-blocks both meeting space and guest room space.

Some years ago, a hotel in the Southwest double-booked its ballroom and constructed a tent to move one of the groups into. The hot desert contributed to making this a planner's nightmare. Lawsuits ensued, which just served to perpetuate the agony. While this is an extreme example, meeting room changes by hotels are not uncommon.

There is no question that "change" is an ugly word in our industry. Both planners and hoteliers need to look beyond themselves to understand the consequences change has on their meeting partner. I believe that fully understanding the impact on the other party accompanied by a desire to be better meeting partners will make all of us deal more fairly in the future. Most importantly, the party making the change has got to be willing to assume responsibility for the negative impact that the change may cause on their planning partner.

Change will never go away, but planning better can go a long way to avoiding much of the problem.

First published in: Convene Magazine, May 1994