The Visa Conundrum
Ensuring that delegates and speakers who need visas get them in time is just one of many logistical concerns facing conference organizers. But this year, it might be more than the usual headache for planners of U.S.-based meetings, with concerns rising about whether popular programs such as Visa Waiver will be cut back, or if visa applicants in general will face longer wait-times before getting their documents.
Many already are reporting delays; the process of granting visas has gotten more rigorous after the 9/11 attacks exposed serious flaws in the vetting process. In fact, 21 percent of planners responding to an
M&C survey last fall said that prospective attendees had been denied visas to meetings in the past.
Several respondents related their experiences with various visa problems. One commented that uncertainties over the new Trump administration's policies "will not help the process," adding "we have an attendee from Nigeria who would like to join us, but she has been refused a visa on multiple occasions."
Another said: "We already have a few Chinese scientists presenting papers who are not able to get visas cleared in time. I think this will become more and more widespread."
Many associations, especially those in the sciences or academia, are getting the message out. One example is the American Association of Geographers, whose annual meeting will be held in early April in Boston. On its meeting site, it alerts registrants that if they're coming from overseas, they might need a visa and that "this process can take anywhere from a few weeks to several months to complete." The registration site includes a
downloadable letter of invitation and links to the U.S. State Department's web pages.
The State Department itself specifically mentions convention-goers in its category of visitor visas for those
traveling to the U.S. on business, known as the B-1 visa. This is required for any attendees except those entering the U.S. from Canada, Bermuda or from designated visa-waiver nations, roughly 35 low-risk countries including most of Western Europe, Australia and New Zealand, Japan and several other Asian nations (access the full list
here).
The U.K. votes to leave the European Union. A refugee crisis causes some European nations to tighten borders. The U.S. presidential election stirs tough talk on immigration and a promise to build a wall on the U.S./Mexican border.
The word xenophobia, usually defined as a fear of foreigners, is not typically a hot topic in the travel industry. But the events of the past year and a half, starting with terror attacks in France and, recently, the new Trump administration's swift action to ban travel temporarily from seven predominantly Muslim nations, is engendering an unease for those in the meetings and hospitality business, as a rise in protectionism around the globe that could make it more difficult for attendees to move across borders.
While this streak of isolationism is hardly limited to one country, many leaders in the travel industry and international organizations have been particularly vocal about its impact on their stateside business, if, as Marriott CEO Arne Sorenson, pictured here, put it, the U.S. could be seen as erecting the equivalent of a giant "keep out" sign.
Addressing a New York University Tisch School of Hospitality conference last year, Sorenson warned of a "rise in nationalism" that, he said, "threatens the ability for people to move freely around the world." And he drew much attention with an open letter to Donald Trump in November, when he urged the new president-elect to "keep the welcome mat out for foreign travelers," a sentiment he has repeated often since then, including at the annual gathering of financial leaders in Davos, Switzerland, this past January.
"Of concern to us would be questions around immigration and trade, and whether those get communicated in a way that translates into 'You're not welcome to come into the United States,' " Sorenson said in his open letter, adding that there are "similar trends in Europe," notably the Brexit vote, which was largely viewed as the result of a rise in anti-immigration sentiment.
The United Nations weighed in, too, with a strong condemnation as it observed International Holocaust Remembrance Day on Jan. 27 -- the same day President Trump signed the executive order announcing the travel ban. U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres noted that the agency was seeing "a deeply troubling rise in extremism, xenophobia, racism and anti-Muslim hatred" in addition to antisemitism, and called it "intolerable."
But many travel industry leaders have a different take, and some clearly believe that while xenophobia is troubling, strengthening national safety and security is a top priority. Roger Dow, head of the U.S. Travel Association, carefully voiced support of the new administration's efforts to step up vetting of applicants for U.S. visas, noting that "without security, there can be no travel." But, he also stressed the importance of carrying this out in way that doesn't unnecessarily impede travel.
Indeed, U.S. Travel has consistently lobbied in support of expedited treatment for foreign visitors who enter the country via visa waiver or a trusted-traveler program, given that inbound travel supports about two million jobs and is dependent on the flow of some 75 million foreign visitors to the U.S. annually, according to the association.
"It is imperative that we find the right balance between security and facilitation," Dow said following the executive order imposing a temporary ban on arrivals from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen in order to reset the vetting process. (At press time, it was reported the Trump administration was considering reintroducing the order in a modified form to address some constitutional concerns and perhaps leaving Iraq off the list.) Dow also urged the administration to "conduct this review quickly" to mitigate possible long-term fallout to the industry.
Both sides weigh in
Meeting planners also are divided on how recent actions by the U.S. and U.K. could impact their business. In a survey conducted in early February by M&C following the executive order (see Research here and verbatim responses here), 30 percent of respondents said their organizations had been affected by the action, while just over half, or 54 percent, had seen no change. Of those who were affected, one-third said travelers already had been inconvenienced when trying to enter the U.S., and 72 percent were concerned that the order would threaten attendance at future events.
Whatever the ultimate fate of the travel ban, some feel that considerable damage already has been done. David Scowsill, president and CEO of the World Travel & Tourism Council, said in an address to an aviation conference on Feb. 14, "The United States is in danger of taking the same path it took after the 9/11 terror attacks, which led to a decade of economic stagnation in the travel and tourism sector." (For more, see the M&C news item, "Closing Borders Risks Jobs, World Travel & Tourism Council Warns Trump Administration.")
Many meeting professionals polled by M&C expressed similar fears. "Uncertainty has been created, which is never good with long-range meeting planning for associations," said one respondent. Another noted, "Travelers from other countries who are afraid to get stuck or be refused entry [could] choose not to attend our conference."
Feedback ranged widely from criticism that the executive order is "not what this country is about" to praise for it, such as: "My clients believe they are now safer coming here."
In the latter camp is Carole Lynn Steiner, a New York City-based consultant and planner, who told M&C she strongly supports the actions of President Trump and does not see any downside for the industry. "What's most important is keeping our country safe, and that means keeping immigration legal," she wrote, adding that the only change she will personally make will be to hold overseas meetings in countries "that prove their loyalty to the U.S."
Meanwhile, nearby destinations like the Bahamas or Canada could seize the opportunity to woo international meetings if the U.S.'s image is tarnished by recent events. One planner recalled seeing a social media thread originating in Canada urging associations to consider cities like Toronto and Montreal as substitutes for New York or Atlanta. On the other hand, some planners could choose to stay closer to home, lest there's a backlash against U.S. companies or organizations abroad.
Asked whether the current political climate would influence site selection in the future, respondents to M&C's survey were about evenly divided, with 51 percent saying no and 49 percent answering in the affirmative. About one-third said they would hold more meetings in the U.S., with just 8 percent saying they would meet more often outside the States.
Politicizing site selection could be a dangerous trend, however, according to some respondents: While a few of those polled say it's inevitable, and that factors like security threats are always taken into account, others worry about the message this would send. In particular, in the fields of education, science and medicine, conferences are critical forums for sharing ideas and research, and anything that would interrupt the free flow of ideas would be a setback. "Generally, the quality of the audiences will decline because fewer diverse views will be present," warned one planner.
Meetings in the Age of Xenophobia
Some practical steps planners can take
Given the uncertainty over the U.S. government's on-and-off travel ban, a major concern for meeting planners is how to prepare for a possible fall-off in bookings or a shift in venue of conferences to countries other than the U.S.
Marriott CEO Arne Sorenson alluded to this prospect during an analysts' call in mid-February, when the ban was in limbo due to court challenges, saying that while the hotel company hadn't seen any "measurable impact" on bookings overall, group bookings in particular could be a concern going forward. He pointed to anecdotal evidence that international organizations "are saying they don't want to bring an international group to the U.S.," and noted that there were some who asked, "Instead of the U.S., how about a place in Canada?"
For international associations with conferences on the calendar this year, such questioning could have serious implications for the bottom line.
So, what to do?
Communicating with members and delegates is key, says Rosa Aronson, executive director of the TESOL International Association in Alexandria, Va., an organization for teachers of English as a second language. She says that the constant drumbeat of news about immigration and the U.S.-Mexico border wall has been an issue for the group's annual convention in Seattle, to be held later this month. The conference is expected to draw around 6,500 people in all. One of the first things the group did was to issue a
public statement to make its position clear.
Another idea is to draw attention to the host city's own laws and policies. In this case, TESOL added some information sessions and a celebration of Seattle as a "sanctuary city," the term typically understood to mean a city in which local law-enforcement officers will strive to protect undocumented citizens from being handed over to federal immigration authorities, unless they're charged with a serious crime. As such, it's a highly controversial topic, one organizations need to weigh at the risk of alienating members who support strict enforcement.
Other strategies to reach out to attendees in this difficult time include:
• Issuing a public statement expressing an organization's position on any executive orders or other polices that affect travel;
• Sending letters to the organization's members to affirm its values, and to suggest strategies for ensuring the success of the meeting;
• Adding events to the agenda to give members an opportunity to share their views and experiences;
• Reaching out to those who can't be there in person, and setting up remote access or special long-distance registration status for the event, and
• Harnessing social media to respond quickly to current events and keep people posted.
What can meeting planners do?
Planners need to gird for some negative blow-back, cautions Joan Eisenstodt, of industry consultancy Eisenstodt Associates in Washington, D.C. Given the uncertainty over what will emerge from both the administration and Congress, "The ripple effect might not happen immediately, and fortunately the [January] ban came at a time of year when few big meetings are being held," she says. Similar to what happened when North Carolina passed legislation that was regarded as anti-LGBT, Eisenstodt notes, many associations already are issuing mission statements that stress their values and opposition to anything that smacks of discrimination.
William Reed, director of meetings and community relations for the Washington, D.C.-based American Society of Hematology, says his association quickly reacted when it got the news of the executive order (international members make up a large percentage of the 17,000-strong organization). ASH's annual convention, which will be held in Atlanta in December of this year, is expected to attract some 27,000 delegates, about 50 percent of whom hail from outside of the U.S., including some of the nations named in Trump's order.
In a statement released shortly after the order was issued, ASH said it was "deeply concerned that restricting travel will prohibit participation in scientific meetings," and that "these in-person meetings and other global exchanges are vitally important because they provide unparalleled opportunities for collaborations and information-sharing."
"Like many medical and science organizations, ours is a very global industry," Reed says. "It's not just the seven countries that were called out," he adds, noting that those on the list were already under scrutiny for terror ties. He is more concerned that attendees from other countries will, as a protest, choose not to come to an international conference that is held in the States. That prospect "is alarming to those of us in the meetings and events business," says Reed.
And, in fact, a group of scientists and academics already have started a petition drive to dissuade delegates from coming here, as a show of solidarity to those who might be prevented from participating. As of press time that petition had more than 6,500 signatures.
In the meantime, some planners have suggested practical moves that could deal with any temporary fallout that could affect attendance.
"We need to start talking about this as an industry," says Paula Rigling, who runs Meeting Planning Professionals, a third-party firm based in Texas. "There are so many questions. How do we prepare? How do we take the financial hit? What do you do if your keynote speaker can't come?" One temporary solution, she says, would be to set up live streaming or Skype connections, with a "remote-only" registration fee.
Rigling is concerned about several large conferences she organizes for academic and research associations. One of her meetings that is set to take place in San Diego this fall would normally draw 1,300 attendees, many of them from outside the U.S., including academic scholars who often move among countries for short-term teaching posts or research. However the travel-ban issue plays out, she fears that uncertainty over what will follow -- and the more general concerns about delays in obtaining visitors' visas -- could keep attendance numbers down.
Fears of a backlash
Echoing the fears of the WTTC's David Scowsill, some officials worry about the potential for another downturn similar to that brought on by the response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, when foreign visitors, particularly from Muslim nations, were subjected to increased scrutiny and delays. That led to what's often referred to in the industry as "the Lost Decade," when inbound traveler numbers to the U.S. from 2000 to 2010 were down by some 78 million visitors who would otherwise have come -- at a time when tourism worldwide was increasing. It's estimated that such a loss cost the U.S. economy more than $500 billion in tourism spending and tax revenue, according to a report from U.S. Travel and Oxford Economics.
Such fears were buttressed by a story published in the Boston Globe on Feb. 14 that found "Online booking websites reported that flight searches from international points of origin to the United States were down anywhere from 6 percent to 17 percent" since Trump signed the executive order. And on March 1, the New York Times reported a forecast by NYC & Company, New York's destination marketing organization, that estimates 2017 will see 300,000 fewer foreign visitors to the city, at a cost of some $600 million in sales to businesses that cater to such visitors, in the wake of the new administration's stated aims.
Ultimately, "the effect on sentiment and travel behavior could be serious," says Adam Sacks, president of Tourism Economics, a division of Oxford Economics. He anticipates a ripple effect on two levels: first, "those who have a genuine concern about traveling to the U.S. and whether they will be treated well, such as people from other Muslim countries," and then "a much wider set, those who sympathize with those people from the affected countries, and as a result will decide not to come."
Just weeks after the travel order was issued, a survey initiated by Meetings Mean Business revealed worry about travel in both directions -- from those seeking to enter the U.S. on a visa, as well as on the part of U.S. citizens who fear a rise in anti-American sentiment when they travel overseas. And several countries, such as Turkey, have gone so far as to issue travel advisories for their citizens about travel to the U.S., warning of crime and heightened anti-immigrant sentiment.
The MMB poll, which drew 1,665 responses, reported problems that included fear of traveler harassment, fear of reprisals against U.S. travelers in the Middle East and uncertainty about green cards. Over the long term, 35 percent of respondents said they worried that the ban could lead to new or heightened threats against U.S. travelers abroad. Another 45 percent said they were expecting complications with existing travel arrangements, and a majority were worried about damage to the reputation of the U.S. as a global meetings destination.
Says ASH's Reed: "For the medical meetings industry, it is important that our voice be heard. Yes, on one level it is about attendance at meetings, but the greater concern is what impact this will have on science, on patient care and on important breakthroughs in the field."
Organizations "might be reluctant to stand up and let their voices be heard," Reed adds. "We are really in unprecedented territory."
At least one thing, however, is clear: This story will continue to unfold, more news will break and planners will need to figure out how best to keep their meetings inclusive.
MEXICO CAUGHT IN THE CROSSFIRE
While the travel ban has drawn widespread attention, many in the industry are more worried about relations with key countries from which millions of people come to the U.S. each year, notably China, which has grown rapidly to be one of the biggest sources of U.S. visitors, and Mexico, our third largest trading partner.
Of course, travel to Mexico already was in the news before President Trump issued his executive order on the seven restricted nations in January; the quick decision to build the promised wall on the border and possibly pay for it with a 20 percent tax on imports led to an abrupt postponement of the Florida Mexico trade show and summit meeting set for late February in Orlando.
The disintegrating relations between the leaders of the two countries also could deter U.S. travelers from going to Mexico. Appearing recently at a panel during the New York Times Travel Show in Manhattan, Alex Zozaya, CEO of Apple Leisure Group, half of whose 60 properties are in Mexico, raised the possibility of damage to tourism, either from being subject to a new tax or from the negative image of Mexico that Trump's tough talk could communicate to supporters. "Those people, a lot of them trust him blindly, and if he makes it look like Mexico is the enemy, people will stop traveling to the enemy," Zozaya said.
However, Michael Foley, a sales director for Banyan Tree Hotels and Resorts, noted that Mexico is a great bargain now due to the strength of the dollar against the peso, and most U.S. visitors "know that it's just politicians talking; Mexicans don't view Americans any differently."
Lourdes Berho, CEO of the Mexico Tourism Board, is optimistic about the coming year, despite the rocky relations with the U.S. politically. The country's tourism industry "has experienced tremendous growth," she says. Mexico is currently the ninth most-visited country in the world, with 35 million visitors in 2016, up from 32.1 million last year, according to Berho.
Berho says she expects Mexico's meetings business to withstand any short-term public-relations hit in reaction to a border wall. "We have a very positive relationship with the meetings and conventions industry, and we don't see any reason why our relationship would be affected," she says.
In 2015, the most recent year for which results are available, Mexico logged an increase of 35 percent over the prior four years in the number of conventions held in the country. To make sure this continues, Berho's office is launching a strategic plan targeting meetings that includes initiatives such as a National Ambassador Program to draw world congresses to the country, with outreach to leaders in scientific, engineering, medical and industry fields to bring their international associations to Mexico. "This will help us improve our position in the world congress arena," Berho says.