Engage > Digesting the $16 muffin issue

Digesting the $16 muffin issue

By Theresa Davis September 22, 2011

Reading JoAnne Allen’s report via Reuters on Wednesday, Sept. 21 about the US Department of Justice audit that “showed” an itemization for a meeting indicated the department paid $16 per item for 250 muffins created many reactions here at MPI headquarters and resoundingly throughout our membership. We have to be careful - one line item plucked from a bill on any event or meeting can be just as out of context as a line randomly pulled from a speech.

What we find sadly lacking in the discourse around this story are issues like – what were the return on the objectives and investments in these meetings, where is the strategic meetings (event portfolio) management for the Department of Justice, the significant value and cost savings of utilizing professional event planning services and agencies.

We encourage our members, industry colleagues and friends in the hospitality and travel industry to speak out against knee-jerk, sweeping assumptions to the value of a meeting based on one line-item description. Let’s have robust, informed discussions on how to take the skills and best practices that insure success in meetings and events, and give them the attention they need in the C-suites in the private and public sectors that will dissuade these assumptions in the future.

Given the $263 billion and the 1.7 million jobs the meeting and event industry provides the United States economy we encourage our government and all businesses to continue to meet responsibly.

_______________________________________________________________

Here is the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General Report.

Additionally, here is an article by Kevin Drum in Mother Jones explaining the "Myth of the $16 Muffin".

Note: MPI collaborates on endorsing the importance of meetings and their economic impact with U.S. Travel Association, ASAE, Convention Industry Council, American Hotel & Lodging Association, and Destination Marketing Association International and other industry partners and other associations.

Conversation

Tags: Davis economy event planner events meeting meetings matter meetings mean business strategic meetings management USEIS

Kyle Hillman September 22, 2011
Equally frustrating is that a planner working for the Department of Justice (under today's level of scrutiny) accepted a BEO that wasn't itemized. There is no question in the polarized environment that we are now working in that opportunites to create media soundbites will dictate the discourse.

Just as the media needs to fact-check talking points, those of us in the industry need to wake-up to the new norm and approach aspects of our job in a way that shields the industry and our employer from unnecessary scrutiny.

I also can't argue enough that as an industry we have a long way to go in advocating for the profession.
Roger Rickard September 23, 2011
The issue is not one report about $16 muffins, but rather the larger perception of the meeting profession both in general terms and as well as within the halls of government. First, there is the lack of understanding the specialized role meeting professionals play in the outcome of any meeting or event. Second, we must understanding of how the archaic rules government regulations impose on government planners, hotels and suppliers that support government meetings; thus forcing, in some cases, a less than fully transparent transaction. And of course there is the issue of how the meetings industry trade groups respond to any public question or comment involving meeting professionals or the meeting profession.

Can it be said that the industry is still trying to find their voice? We must use our voice to speak out on issues that matter to our profession. Yes, it is the responsibility of the trade organizations to speak up, but not just them. It is equally incumbent upon all members to respond to any attack by advocating responsibly the value of the profession, without condoning any actions that reflect negatively on our craft.

Please read a follow up article by Associated Press. http://news.yahoo.com/16-muffins-no-says-hilton-004116135.html

I’m glad to see Hilton Worldwide defending the accusations.
Mitchell Beer September 23, 2011
So what we need is a quick, nifty infographic of a $16 muffin, with pieces of the "pie" that show the shares of the total that went to baked goods, fresh fruit, coffee and tea, juices, taxes, and tips (per the Yahoo! news article). Do I see a collaboration in the offing for the Hilton and MPI graphics departments?

BUT if we leave it at that, let ourselves off the hook, and pass around high-fives that we dodged another bullet, we miss the lesson in this episode and leave ourselves vulnerable for next time. At least at this stage in the conversation (since it keeps shifting), it appears that the two very basic mistakes came from a hotel that didn't itemize its costs and a planner that didn't properly scrutinize and query the BEO.

If that's right, I have to ask... what didn't we get about the last attack on meetings in 2009? It isn't up to government accountants or senators from Iowa to somehow, intuitively understand that there's a good explanation for what might appear to be a $16 muffin. It's our job to tell the story -- consistently, preventively, pre-emptively. In this case, the training and standard business practices in two different industries, hospitality and meetings, failed.

At that point, Roger, I would say that the specific hotel chain "defending the accusations" is necessary in the circumstances, but just a smaller part of the bigger picture. Do we have any indication that any chains that need to will change their BEO templates so that no auditor ever makes the same mistake again?
Loretta Lowe September 23, 2011
Lot of good a blog is going to do..... yet another reason our industry trade associations need to have PRESS REPS!!! I've asked MPI this several times and they said there are legal issues around having lobbiests. Well, having press reps is not the same as lobbying. A press rep would be able to immediately respond, get on the same news channels and present the "other side" of the story. Until we come together as an industry and devote some of our membership dollars to this, this "other side" will never get told.
Theresa September 26, 2011
@Loretta:

As the director of strategic communications for MPI, I am the public relations representative for our 501c (iii) and I think understand your frustration with seeing a lack of instantaneous response.

We must tread a very, very fine line between media outreach/advocacy and what could be perceived as lobbying activities, especially when responding or commenting on a government report. Know that many times we do respond to reporters and editors; we do provide insight, expertise and analysis that simply doesn't get included or reported on. Hard data is often less sensational and not as glitzy a story.

Rest assured, our organization and others that worked on the US Economic Impact Study, Meetings Mean Business, Meetings Matter and other initiatives in the past 3 years work behind the scenes constantly to tell the compelling story of the benefits of meetings and events. And one of those ways is by blogging and engaging in conversations to see what strikes a cord with our members and peers. And we encourage them to elevate the conversations as advocates of their own careers and our industry.

@Roger: I couldn't agree more that there is still a lack of understanding within many professional sectors and industries as to the "understanding the specialized role meeting professionals play in the outcome of any meeting or event"

@Mitchell: I think your question "Do we have any indication that any chains that need to will change their BEO templates so that no auditor ever makes the same mistake again?" is very interesting and compelling.

Digesting the $16 muffin issue

Post a comment!