JPS Santella Logo.jpg (2723 bytes)

Incentive Articles

Incentive Travel and Meeting Planner Services. We also provide Security Services, Fraud Investigations, Credit Card and Identity Theft Prevention .

2011 INCENTIVE RESEARCH FOUNDATION TRENDS SURVEY

A joint survey between the Incentive Research Foundation and Corporate Meetings & Incentives found a slight improvement in incentive budgets from last year. In 2009, 63 percent of respondents said, their budgets were “slightly to significantly less” than in 2008, while in 2010, that number dropped to 46 percent. As in 2009, one-third of the 2010 respondents said budgets had remained consistent along with a reduction of respondents,16 percent in 2010 versus 20 percent in 2009, said their incentive budgets were “significantly less” than in the previous year.

Budgets are expected to improve according to 40 percent of respondents in 2011 while only 22 percent of respondents expect budgets this year to be lower than in 2010; 10 percent expect them to be “significantly lower”.

Chart Page 9

Twenty-three percent of respondents expect their budgets to be slightly better in 2011 than in 2010 more than doubling the 10 percent who last year predicted that 2010 budgets would be slightly better than in 2009. Almost one in five respondents said their companies already have canceled a 2011 travel incentive (the same as last year) and 9 percent reported canceling a 2011 merchandise incentive (up from 4 percent last year). The economy was the underlying reason for budget cuts and cancellations in 2010 (according to 72 percent of respondents). Only 27 percent attributed the cuts to media or public perception and 33 percent of respondents also reported directives from upper management to alter their incentives.

The challenge for Incentive planners continues to be keeping costs down while making their incentive trips attractive for attendees. The survey shows that cutbacks made in 2010 were made with the intention of reducing the quality of the program such as having fewer management persoanl attend, eliminating welcome gifts and cutting the number of qualifiers (which allowed them to keep the per-person budget up). These are among the top changes predicted for 2011 by companies who are working with lower budgets while other potential cutbacks in 2011 could have far-reaching implications for both destinations and hotel categories. More than a third of respondents (38 percent) said they plan not to use five-star properties (up from 23 percent last year), and 21 percent will avoid resorts or resort destinations (up from 11 percent last year). The news is good for all-inclusive, which offer higher perceived value: 31 percent of respondents said they plan to use these properties in 2011 (even though many are resorts).

Chart Page 10

For Incentive planners, the challenges expected in 2011 include staying within budget (53 percent of respondents), generating excitement about their downplayed trips (26 percent), and choosing a destination that meets their criteria despite their budget (20 percent) and how all of these changes are being perceived by attendees.

Chart Page 11

The feedback regarding program cuts from attendees responded that 48 percent were grateful just to be having a trip”; 39 percent said feedback was “as positive as in past years”; and 25 percent said attendees “are getting used to a lower level of service and amenities.” Under 10 percent said attendees were dissatisfied with the destination, service, or property, about the same as last year (other than an increase in dissatisfaction with the property from 3 percent last year to 8 percent this year). Sixteen percent said winners were unhappy with program inclusions.

A Review of the Changes Over the last Ten Years

A review of the changes over the last ten years revealed that the most substantive differences are reductions in per-person budgets and increased ties to corporate social responsibility.

· In 2001, 43 percent of respondents said their incentive travel budgets had remained stable in 2000, while 33 percent of respondents to our 2011 survey responded in a similar way. In 2001, 39 percent of companies expected budgets to increase in the following year, while only 20 percent of this year’s respondents expect their budgets to rise.

· The average per-person spending on incentive trips in 2000 was $3,256; in 2010 it was down to $2,617. Factor in an annual inflation rate ranging from 3.85 in 2009 to 1.59 in 2002, therefore Incentive planners have much to spend today.

· The average incentive trip in 2000 lasted 4.89 days, with three-quarters of respondents holding trips of four days or more. This statistic was not included in 2010 however, 45 percent of respondents indicated that “shortening the length of the trip” was second in cost cutting.

· Of 2001 survey respondents, 59 percent held international programs, while in this year’s survey, 31 percent cited moving an international location to a domestic one as a cost-cutting measure.

Chart Page 12

INCENTIVE INDUSTRY TRENDS FOR 2011

The Incentive Research Foundation survey of 120 Incentive Travel buyers and suppliers revealed that:

Procurement Role in Planning and Implementing Incentive Travel Programs Change for 2011 versus 2010:

· 33% Remain Unchanged

· 32% Slight Increase

· 22% Moderate Increase

· 10% Significant Increase

· 3% Slight Decrease

· 1% Significant decrease

Anticipated Changes in 2011 Incentive Travel Program Budgets Change for 2011 versus 2010:

· 33% Remain Unchanged

· 31% Slight Increase

· 20% Slight Decrease

· 9% Moderate Increase

· 3% Significant Increase

· 3% Moderate Decrease

· 1% Significant Decrease

Expected Accommodation Changes for 2011 Incentive Travel Programs:

· 40% Decrease in Total Number of days/nights

· 32% Decrease in Total Number of Rooms

· 27% Change to “All-inclusive” pricing options

· 26% Decrease in On-site Inclusions per Participant

· 19% No Change

· 15% Decrease in Number of Room Upgrades

· 9% Increase in On-site Inclusions per Participant

· 9% Increase in Total Number of Rooms

· 7% Increase in Total Number of days/nights

· 3% Increase in Number of Room Upgrades

“Incentive Industry Trends 2011,” conducted by Pulse Survey for the Incentive Research Foundation (IRF) disclosed that economic indicators have stabilized for the incentive industry and are improving with respondents indicating that they expect the incentive business will improve in both 2011 and 2012.

Data was collected from 130 survey participants including incentive providers, corporate incentive travel buyers, incentive suppliers in September 2010. Participants were asked specifically about trends related to travel programs, merchandise non-cash programs, budgets for 2011, and other issues of interest to the industry.

Some of the key findings from the survey were:

Travel: 55 percent saw the economy having a positive impact on implementing travel incentives compared to just 33 percent in November 2009. The negative impact factor decreased from 53 percent to 28 percent.

Travel budgets: 44 percent of respondents saw an increase in budgets for travel for 2011, however 40 percent anticipated reduced number of days/nights per trips, 32 percent saw reduced number of rooms, and 37 percent were adding individual reward trips as an option over group travel.

Overall: 68 percent of Pulse Survey respondents predicted that business will be better for the incentive industry in 2011, with 77 percent saying it will be better in 2012.

Increasing procurement: Nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of participants agreed that corporate procurement departments will increase their involvement in travel program planning to some degree in 2011; 59 percent saw an increase on the merchandise side.

Merchandise: 46 percent of respondents in October 2010 saw the economy as having a positive impact on implementation of noncash merchandise incentives compared to just 24 percent in November 2009. Likewise, only 24 percent saw the economy as having a negative impact, compared to 34 percent one year ago.

Merchandise budgets: 55 percent anticipated an increase, 10 percent a slight decrease, with only 1 percent registering a significant decrease.

CSR: 23 percent of respondents said customers request corporate social responsibility (CSR) components to reward programs “often” or “every time,” with 51 percent requesting it “sometimes.”

Gift cards: 41 percent of respondents expect to see increased use of debit gift cards as an award selection for merchandise programs in 2011.

Social media: 58 percent respondents said they make use of social media to communicate with participants prior to an incentive or recognition program.

The overall findings are positive for the industry however, communicating the value of incentive programs is necessary as only 11 percent of survey participants indicate that they feel the industry is “doing enough to demonstrate the business value of incentives,” while 55 percent agree that more case studies would assist in demonstrating the business value of incentives.

Return to the top of the page

2011 INCENTIVE’S SURVEY

This year, the number of respondents who said their companies’ merchandise awards budgets increased over the past year was 30 percent, nearly twice the number who said the same thing in 2010. And the percentage of those whose per-recipient spending increased was up by nearly one-third. In addition, the largest programs—those with annual budgets of more than $1 million—were also up by nearly one-third.

Far fewer recipients said they were planning to replace travel programs with merchandise incentive awards this year than last year—less than 10 percent in our 2011 report versus more than 40 percent in the 2010 Merchandise IQ survey—but that reflects the fact that corporations are growing far less worried about the potential negative publicity that virtually paralyzed the incentive travel market in the past few years. This survey was based on responses from 219 subscribers to the print and digital editions of Incentive magazine and its online newsletters.

a10

a12

a13

a14

a15

a16

a17

a18

a19

a21

a22

Return to the top of the page

ANNUAL INCENTIVE TRENDS SURVEY INDICATES CUTS THROUGH 2010

The 2009 Annual Incentive Trends Survey by Corporate Meeting & incentives magazine revealed that cutbacks in incentive budget will continue though 2010.

Their survey of senior executives, directors of sales and marketing, and meeting managers at Fortune 1000 companies revealed changing destinations, shrinking budgets, and disappearing amenities with 56 percent indicating that they are postponing or eliminating at least a portion of their incentive programs in 2009. Those who are not making major changes are still finding ways to do their programs more moderately.

Recent negative press coverage of industry gatherings such as AIG has caused companies to re-evaluate if their public image could be harmed if they went ahead with their 2009 incentive programs. The degree of the impact on Incentives vary from industry to industry. Some companies have decided to offer winners cash instead of a group trip or merchandise, according to a report published by Financial & Insurance Meetings. In fact, 65 percent of respondents to our survey said cash is the best motivator for sales incentives with consumers tightening their purse strings, they may decide to reward employees with cash and gift cards.

Companies that are continuing with their travel programs are considering changes, according to our survey with 44 percent of survey respondents moving forward with their programs, nearly three-quarters are making some kind of adjustment: 44 percent of this group will send fewer in-house staff, 40 percent expect to send fewer qualifiers, 30 percent will cut the number of nights, and 30 percent expect to have fewer pillow gifts in the rooms.

An event planner at Amylin Pharmaceuticals in San Diego, says she is also going forward with her annual 80-person sales incentive, booked into Puerto Vallarta for four nights in 2009. She is considering reducing the number of company employees attending but otherwise will be sticking with her plans, which include several choices of activities and plenty of free time. Her 2010 program, scheduled for Costa Rica, is also going forward as planned. However this attitude is in the minority among survey respondents.

Looking beyond 2009, 71 percent said they are rethinking destinations due to airfare costs, and almost half (47 percent) will be using less-expensive properties. That's no surprise: While half of respondents said their budgets stayed the same from 2007 to 2008, for a median of $3,846 per qualifier, 56 percent expect their 2009 dollars to shrink. Planners were far more optimistic when surveyed in late 2007 about their 2008 incentives: Only 20 percent expected their annual budgets to contract.

Some clients are even scrutinizing property names. In some cases, having the word ‘resort’ in a name isn't the best. That concern is reflected by survey respondents, 46 percent of whom said the economy had impacted their property and/or destination choices.

In another sign that companies are scaling back this year, only 37 percent of respondents reported using a non-U.S. destination every year, down from almost half of respondents when surveyed in late 2007 about their 2008 incentives. An even greater drop is in the number of respondents who reported they travel outside the U.S. every couple of years, from 80 percent in last year's survey to just a third of respondents in this survey.

A director of incentive travel and public relations for health benefits company Humana Inc. said his incentive programs are constantly scrutinized to ensure maximum return. For his four 2009 incentive programs, he is considering other cuts including possibly shortening some programs by a day to keep within budget.

The survey also revealed the following:

	56% of respondents have canceled some or all of their 2009 group incentives;
	33% of respondents have canceled some or all of their 2010 group incentives; WHAT THEY SPEND
	$3,846 Per-person incentive budget for companies with fewer than 1,000 employees;
	$4,500 Per-person incentive budget for companies with fewer than 1,000 employees;
	47% of respondents are considering less-expensive properties for 2010;
	71% of respondents re-thinking destinations for 2010 because of airfare costs: DECISION MAKER Who makes the final destination decisions for your programs?
	41% C-level executive
	30% Sales/marketing
	18% Meeting/incentive management *Return to the top of the page*

RETURN ON INVESTMENT STUDY INDICATES A $4 TO $1 RETURN ON INCENTIVE TRAVEL

A report by Oxford Economics “The Return On Investment of U.S. Business Travel” a Wayne, PA-based firm that uses econometrics (the use of statistical mathematics to test economic theory and aid economic decisions) to create as accurately as possible a picture of the true return the business travel industry brings to American corporations and the U.S. economy.

Adam Sacks, founder and managing director of Oxford Economics’ Tourism Economics Division research revealed that $229 billion was spent on business travel in 2008, Oxford Economics found that for every dollar invested in business travel, companies realize $12.50 in incremental revenue. Furthermore, by canceling all business travel, the average U.S. company would forfeit 17 percent of its profits in the first year. It would take three years for that company’s profits to recover to the level before the cancellations.

The study found that pure incentive travel only accounts for 5 percent of the average company’s business travel budget, and the median return on a $1 investment in incentive travel is $4. The $4 return on investment for incentive travel was similar to that of conferences and trade shows, both of which produce ROI of $4 to $5.99. Customer meetings produce the highest return-on-investment of $15 to $19.99. More than half of U.S. companies cut their travel budgets in the six months before the study was done, and those that made cuts reduced their travel budgets by an average of 35 percent. The bottom line of the analysis is that for every dollar that the average U.S. company spends on business travel, that dollar yields an incremental $3.80 in profits.

The problem with econometric analysis is that it looks at business travel of all kinds in aggregate. There’s no way, through that piece of the analysis, to identify how much benefits are being realized through different types of travel. That’s why the study leaned on the surveys of business executives to understand how incentive travel plays into that overall equation of business profitability and performance. The surveys looked at the benefits of incentives by asking executives how much they would have to pay in cash compensation, whether as a bonus or salary increase to get the same motivational effect as an incentive trip. The average response was an 8.5 percent increase.

If we assume an employee’s base salary is $100,000, that 8.5 percent increase in compensation would be $8,500. Figuring the average cost of a three-to-four-night incentive trip plus airfare and expenses at $2,000, it would have cost them more than four times as much to get the motivation and productivity benefit that the incentive trip would have produced. The study therefore states that cash is an awfully expensive way to motivate people. When they’re asked, [incentive program participants] say, ‘I’ll take the cash.” “But in practice, the effect of an incentive is much greater. And travel is particularly powerful because it builds memories and loyalty, and it is in the luxury category (something they might not do themselves. You are building equity on a personal level that cash just doesn’t, unless it is a substantial amount.

In addition to incentive travel’s cost-effectiveness compared to cash, both the executives and frequent travelers told Oxford Economics researchers that it has a substantial effect on morale and job satisfaction rates. Four-fifths of executives and business travelers told researchers that incentive travel has a high impact on employee morale, and nearly three-quarters said it has a similar impact on job performance. Many other types of business travel have an incentive component intended to boost morale such as meetings held at resorts, while trade shows and conventions are often held in large cities or resort destinations that are draws themselves.

While the majority of the research looked at the hard sales aspect of business travel—such as retaining customers (across all industries, surveyed executives said cutting all business travel would cost them one-quarter of their clients and 28 percent of revenue) and converting prospects (40 percent of prospects met in person are converted, versus 16 percent without an in-person meeting) another benefit of business travel the report sought to define was its effect on the business travelers themselves. The ‘sharing of ideas’ was confirmed by 76 percent of travelers as a benefit of internal travel, indicating travel to be an investment in human capital. The majority of business travelers identified internal company travel as key to professional development (66 percent), job performance (58 percent), and morale (56 percent). And more than 40 percent of travelers perceive a strong relationship between travel and staff retention.

The study states that “decisions to cut travel are very short-sighted, that indeed there are bottom-line benefits to be realized in the near future, however, over a 12-month period cuts in business travel would generally be pennywise and pound-foolish.” The econometric analysis of this study leverages data by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics on the relationship between industry productivity and profitability and what each industry spends on travel.

Ito view the Incentive’s 2009 Travel IQ survey (PDF format), click here.

Return to the top of the page

$77 BILLION SPENT ON INCENTIVE TRAVEL, MEETINGS AND SPECIALS EVENTS

According to the 2007 Industry Profile Study: "The Market for Incentive Travel, Motivational Meetings and Special Events in the United States," $77 billion was spent on incentive travel, motivational meetings and special events in 2006. Of the total, $13.4 billion spent on incentive travel (an award earned based on performance), $25.9 billion on motivational meetings and $37.8 billion on special events (stand alone events that include business meetings, sales meetings and social customer gatherings),

Ten percent of large and small companies combined used incentive travel last year, while 50% used motivational meetings and 55% used special events. But overall, large firms (with annual revenue of more than $100 million) were partial to special events with 81% using the tactic; 61% used motivational meetings and 23% favored incentive travel in 2006.

The most common goal of incentive travel was for sales incentives, said Rodger Stotz, vice president, managing consultant of Maritz Inc. and trustee of the Incentive Research Foundation’s research committee. Other goals included maintaining high morale and improving productivity, the study said.

The average incentive travel budget was $164,271 while the standard budget for special events was $78,029 and the average motivational meeting budget cost $68,330. More than half of large companies said their budgets for motivational meetings increased over the last two years, with 41% saying their budgets remained the same. Meanwhile, more than half of large companies said they believe spending on incentive travel will increase over the next two years; 37% said the budgets would remain the same.

For special events, four in 10 large firms said their special events budgets increased over the last year, where 44% said the budgets have stayed the same. The study surveyed 1,121 small and large companies.

.Return to the top of the page

USING INCENTIVES AS A PROMOTIONAL VEHICLE

More than 80 percent of merchandise and incentive travel users responding to a study by Incentive Federation achieve established goals with their incentive programs. 65 percent report that they consider cost versus the desired result when designing motivation program, while 62 percent look at profitability. 82 percent of the respondents report using merchandise and/or incentive travel as sales incentives.

The study indicated that incentives are used for Sales incentives (82%), Consumer promotions (66%), Non-sales recognition (61%) and Dealer incentives (48%). The percentage of incentive programs that achieved established goals was 83.1% for Dealer programs, 83.7% for Consumer promotions and 88.3% for Sales programs. The average percentage increase set as the qualifying goal was 21.2% for Sales programs, 19.3% for Consumer programs and 18% for Dealer programs.

Factors Used To Create Qualifying Goals

Previous sales in an established time period	63%
Sales forecasts	53%
Percent above the plan	33%
Potential revenues	30%
Distribution of product	21%
Longevity of territory	17%
Daily contacts	14%
Based on competition	14%
Gross profit trigger	14%
Existing contract continuance	13%
How quick to recover costs	6%
Reduce hours/increase gross sales	6%

Criteria Used To Evaluate Success

Total Sales	63%
Percent reaching goals	45%
Profit on sales ROI	38%
Increased market share	38%
Cost as percentage of sales	23%

Key Decision Factors

	Overall	Consumer	Sales	Dealer	Non-Sales
Cost Versus Desired Result	65%	44%	58%	42%	36%
Profitability	62%	43%	57%	44%
Has a Lasting Impact	60%	42%	45%	35%
Good Appeal	58%	37%		44%	38%
Ease of Administration	56%		47%		39%
Fairness	55%		48%	34%	42%
Perceived Value	50%	38%	45%		36%
Uniqueness Over Time	35%
Matching Program to Audience	34%
Comparable to Previous Programs	28%

Program Objectives

	Overall	Consumer	Sales	Dealer	Non-Sales
Increase or maintain sales	84%	40%	80%	61%
Build morale	65%		48%	26%	61%
Build customer Loyalty/trust	51%	49%		31%
Increase market share	51%	37%	40%	41%
Build employee Loyalty/trust	49%		34%		49%
Improve customer service	49%	31%		29%
Create new markets	44%	30%	36%
Foster teamwork	42%				43%
Develop contacts	40%
Demonstrate concern for workers	32%				36%

Source: Incentive Federation Survey

Return to the top of the page

2008 INCENTIVE TRAVEL SURVEY BY BTN

Incentive Travel objectives include:

	Recognize performance......................63.7%
	Build employee morale......................52.4%
	Build customer loyalty.......................41.8%
	Improve employee loyalty.................37.4%
	Foster teamwork..................................36.6%
	Improve customer service..................33.3%
	Sell new accounts................................31.9%
	Introduce new products.....................28.2%
	Start/maintain b-to-b relationship....26.7%
	Build/drive traffic................................22.0%
	Improve safety........................................8.4%

The length of qualifying period for Incentive Travel Programs can vary depending on strategy, goals and budget.

7 to 12 months..............51.5%

3 to 6 months................24.8%

Less than 3 months.....10.7%

More than a year.........13.0%

Group sizes for Travel Incentive Programs for 2008 are projected to be:

Less than 25...................40.5%

25 to 49 people..............15.2%

50 to 99 people..............17.6%

100 to 199 people..........12.2%

200 or more people.......14.5%

The type of hospitality establishments that Incentive Planners use:

Resorts..............................................83.4%

Brand name hotels.........................72.0%

Independent hotels........................46.0%

All-inclusive hotels.........................44.5%

Urban hotels.....................................26.1%

Vilas...................................................16.6%

Ownership suites/condo hotels....11.4%

Return to the top of the page

MOTIVATION/INCENTIVE APPLICATIONS STUDY IS RELEASED

Click on the link below to view a study conducted among current users of Merchandise and Travel Items for Motivation/Incentive Applications sponsored by the Incentive Federation.

Incentive Survey.pdf

Return to the top of the page

PROMO RELEASES 2007 PREMIUM & INCENTIVE SURVEY

Click on the links below to see the 2007 Promo survey on Premiums and Incentives. We recommend that you subscribe to Promo Magazines for information related all all types of marketing promotions.

Promo_2007_PI_Survey-Justly_Enriched.pdf

Return to the top of the page

INCENTIVE TRAVEL IQ SURVEY RESULTS 2008

The survey was conducted online from July 9-31, 2008 . The survey invitation was sent to a total of 11,061 names, including subscribers of Incentive and Sales & Marketing Management magazines and professionals affiliated with the Incentive Research Foundation. There were 275 respondents, for a 2.5% response rate.

Incentive Travel Program Planning

1. What are the primary benefits your company associates with incentive travel programs? (Select all that apply)
		Response Percent	Response Count
Increase sales		72.4%	19
Increase market share		36.7%	101
Create new markets		17.1%	47
Sell new accounts		33.5%	92
Introduce new products		26.2%	72
Recognize performance		67.3%	185
Retention/recruitment of employees		31.3%	86
Build morale		54.2%	149
Foster teamwork		34.9%	96
Improve employee loyalty		34.2%	94
Build customer loyalty		29.8%	82
Improve customer service		16.4%	45
Other		2.2%	6
	*answered question*		275

Q.1 – Other specify responses

We provide incentive travel products for business in the US and Overseas, one of our key clients is in the media business and is using travel as an incentive tool to meet or exceed sales goals.

customer relationship building

Provide feedback to global suppliers.

Top Sales Professionals are true competitors. Having an incentive trip brings out their competitive drive and increases sales as they compete to win a spot on the trip.

Improve professional attitudes and pride among top producers.

Helping our Reps grow their business

2. What audiences typically participate in your incentive travel programs? (Select all that apply)
		Response Percent	Response Count
Internal sales force		76.2%	208
Channel sales force		22.0%	60
Dealer/distributor		23.4%	64
Client/customer		31.1%	85
Non-sales employees		21.2%	58
Other		2.9%	8
	*answered question*		273

Q.2 – Other specify responses

suppliers

external sales force

Our financial advisors are independent; therefore they sell whatever products fit the clients' needs.

Operations as well

Full time and certain part time field representatives.

non-sales employees include: technicians, customer service professionals, warehouse workers, etc.

Independent Contractors

Directors/Partners

3. On average, what is the length of the qualifying period for your incentive travel programs?
		Response Percent	Response Count
Less than 3 months		13.5%	37
3 - 6 months		17.1%	47
7 - 9 months		4.4%	12
10 - 12 months		56.0%	154
More than a year		9.1%	25
	*answered question*		275

4. What are the key resources you use for information when selecting an incentive travel destination? (Select up to 5 responses)
		Response Percent	Response Count
Trade/industry magazines		42.5%	117
Trade magazine websites		14.2%	39
Destination/CVB websites		25.8%	71
Hotel/resort websites		49.5%	136
Trade shows		21.8%	60
Conferences		18.5%	51
Sales reps		24.0%	66
Industry associations		13.8%	38
Word-of-mouth/referrals		47.6%	131
Outside incentive company		21.5%	59
Site inspection tours		38.9%	107
Familiarization trips		26.2%	72
CD ROMs		2.9%	8
E-newsletters		4.0%	11
Direct mail		4.4%	12
Other		5.5%	15
	*answered question*		275

		Q.4 – Other specify responses
	1.	Our trips are solely based on the association with our product
	2.	Personally selected by Senior Management
	3.	Typically based around an event-NASCAR-professional driving schools, NHRA or lifestyle-family cruises-resorts
	4.	provide input to corporate planners on desirable locations
	5.	Input from our incentive company is key in the decision making process, especially if they have had prior experience with the property.
	6.	Learning and leisure reward by attending the Nat. Cattleman's Business Association Convention at various locations annually.
	7.	trips related to the company stories/history/brand
	8.	Outside Travel Events Company
	9.	corporate travel service
	10.	Top Management Input
	11.	Destination first (not just for beauty and fun, but for safety, ease of travel also), hotel second, "what to do" third.
	19.	Personal experience
	12.	Voice of Associate
	13.	Award Recipient's Choice.
	14.	Inside Travel Agency
	15.	Internal conference and meetings organization

5. What role does an outside incentive company play in the planning stages of your incentive travel program? (Select all that apply)
		Response Percent	Response Count
Involvement with the establishment of the incentive objectives		14.1%	38
Involvement with the establishment of the incentive rules		10.0%	27
Involvement with the establishment of the incentive budget		14.9%	40
Involvement in the awards selection		18.6%	50
No involvement in the planning stages		66.5%	179
	*answered question*		269

6. How is your approach to planning an incentive travel program different now compared to 3 years ago? (Select all that apply)
		Response Percent	Response Count
More time spent on researching Best Practices		22.7%	62
More focus on ROI		40.3%	110
More involvement with outside incentive professionals		14.7%	40
Less involvement with outside incentive professionals		9.2%	25
No change		37.4%	102
	*answered question*		273

7. What changes, if any, have you had to make to your incentive travel programs to accommodate a diverse group of participants (Gen Xer's, Boomers, etc.)? (Select all that apply)
		Response Percent	Response Count
Added a wider variety of optional activities		42.1%	114
Offered individual incentive travel instead of group travel		14.4%	39
Changed awards from travel to merchandise		15.1%	41
No changes made to accommodate/does not apply to our participants		41.3%	112
Other		4.1%	11
	*answered question*		271

		Q.7 – Other specify responses
	1.	Use hotels and properties which provide group/incentive concessions and upgrade. Buy currency ahead or secure payments in US$ and not Euros'
	2.	There are two trip options: one for families and one for couples.
	3.	Limited program internally but working with sales to generate more sales
	4.	Destination change
	5.	Offer more vacation or other benefits
	6.	Resort selections based on age of participants
	7.	different speaker and entertainment options
	8.	Traditionally we have taken the program Internationally or to Hawaii . For this next year we are staying in the Continental US.
	9.	locations, food and beverage - diversity for us is a more global workforce
	10.	Geography/location often chosen based on exchange rate factors; i.e. all conferences held in US this year versus US and Europe
	11.	Change the way we market

Incentive Destinations

8. Which of the following are most important criteria when evaluating a DESTINATION for your incentive travel programs? (Select up to 3 responses)
		Response Percent	Response Count
Reasonable costs/value		74.9%	194
Destination's reputation/buzz		48.6%	126
Desire to use a new destination		22.0%	57
Easy access by air/car		43.6%	113
Distance traveled by attendees		20.5%	53
Convenient local transportation		13.5%	35
Security/safety		29.3%	76
Appealing climate		47.9%	124
Diverse dining/entertainment options		23.9%	62
Cultural/recreational attractions available		29.3%	76
Other		4.6%	12
	*answered question*		25

		Q.8 –Other specify responses
	1.	relationship with sales person - fair contracting
	2.	Usually a golf-oriented destination.
	3.	Where we have a facility and customers so we our customers don't get hit with taxes
	4.	Motivational appeal
	5.	Combination of business/pleasure for winners.
	6.	All of your items listed are important, but, we want the most "Bang for our Buck" and take all of these items into consideration
	7.	Wherever the NCBA convention is held.
	8.	related to brand/stories/history
	9.	Award Recipient's Choice.
	10.	We always you "destination" type resorts that have a reputation for quality, geographic beauty and facilities for male and female participants.
	11.	Attendee's interest in location
	12.	Where our Managing Partner likes

9. Which of the following DOMESTIC destinations are the most popular for your incentive travel programs in 2008? (Select up to 3 responses) In the blank space, please include the most exotic domestic destinations you are offering this year.
		Response Percent	Response Count
Alaska		7.1%	18
Arizona		20.0%	51
California		38.4%	98
Colorado		8.2%	21
Florida		49.8%	127
Georgia		3.9%	10
Hawaii		30.2%	77
Louisiana		2.7%	7
Nevada		24.3%	62
New England		6.7%	17
New York		12.9%	33
South Carolina		4.7%	12
Texas		4.7%	12
None		12.9%	33
Most exotic		13.7%	35
	*answered question*		255

		Q.9 – Other specify responses
	1.	Nevada
	2.	New movement towards Orient markets
	3.	Where "organic foodies" will find great destinations where they can learn about organic farming, recipes, cooking classes, in beautiful and environmentally friendly locations
	4.	Santa Fe , NM
	5.	Sonoma Wine Country
	6.	Vegas
	7.	Las Vegas
	8.	of domestic would be Alaska or Hawaii
	9.	Hawaii
	10.	Salmon fishing off Langara Island , BC
	11.	Puerto Rico
	12.	Hawaii- with First Class air.
	13.	NYC
	14.	No exotic destinations. We keep our travel incentives simple and close to home so a family can utilize the trips for a weekend destination. The Smoky Mountains , Williamsburg , VA , and Myrtle Beach , SC are most popular.
	15.	Puerto Rico is our "08" destination
	16.	Caribbean Islands
	17.	Amelia Island , Florida
	18.	Caribbean
	19.	Puerto Rico
	20.	Chile , Panama , St. Lucia , Barbados , St. Maarten
	21.	7 days, 6 nights at the Luxor Resort, Las Vegas .
	22.	Puerto Rico
	23.	China & Japan
	24.	Sonoma (nothing that exotic domestically this year)
	25.	Bahamas
	26.	Miami , FL (3 trips in 2008)
	27.	Cabo San Lucas
	28.	Alaska salmon fishing
	29.	New Mexico
	30.	Clients looking for something different...dude ranch, outdoor experience, etc.
	31.	St. Kitts, Puerto Rico , Caribbean , St. Thomas , Mexico
	32.	Virginia
	33.	Aspen
	34.	Offered a Canadian/New England Cruise
	35.	Canada

10. Which of the following INTERNATIONAL destinations are the most popular for your incentive travel programs in 2008? (Select up to 3 responses) In the blank space, please include the most exotic international destinations you are offering this year.
		Response Percent	Response Count
Canada		14.9%	38
Bermuda		12.2%	31
Caribbean		40.0%	102
Mexico		33.7%	86
Central America		7.1%	18
South America		5.1%	13
Eastern Europe		5.5%	14
Western Europe		20.0%	51
Asia		2.7%	7
China		4.3%	11
Southeast Asia		1.6%	4
Hong Kong		2.4%	6
Japan		3.5%	9
Australia/New Zealand / Pacific Islands		9.0%	23
Middle East		0.8%	2
Africa		2.7%	7
None		33.7%	86
Most exotic		4.3%	11
	*answered question*		255

		Q.10 – Other specify responses
	1.	Africa
	2.	China