It's been the mantra in the events industry for the past several months. Regardless of whether the event is for a company that is growing their profits or losing market share, the trend is to cut the budget for fear of public reprisal for misappropriation of company funds. While we in the business meeting industry know that our projects have a direct result to the bottom line, the current perception is that we simply create boondoggle events. It's an unfortunate discernment that hopefully will change in the near future. Since Joe Mertz Production Consulting designs their events to deliver the intended message with the allotted budget, I wanted to show a few examples of how we have "cut the budget" on a few programs, but still met the objectives and intentions of the meeting. Take a look at these comparisons below and see if you can see if the product reflects a dramatic cut in budget.

Aeropostale Partner in Profit We were tasked with cutting the budget by 25% from the previous year. We were able to do this by working with the meeting planner on operational issues. The 2008 schedule had an aggressive room changing selection. This resulted in doubling the equipment and crew allotments. In 2009, we were able to utilize the same space for multiple sessions. We had a dramatic change in the room for each session, so the meeting did not feel repetitive. However, the decrease in staff and equipment allowed for us to meet the requested budget reduction.

OSI/Outback Steakhouse Conference This budget needed to be cut by 33%, and we rose to the challenge. While the project lost the widescreen aspect from the previous year, we were still able to create a simple stage design that still met the impact and size that this company commands. The screen set up still allowed for the appropriate graphics and video content to allow the executives to deliver the message necessary to align their corporate strategy for the year.

In-House versus Us Often times, our services are lost to the concept of using "in-house". Typically, we aren't given consideration because planners feel that in-house will be cheaper and more convenient. You would never say that about the hotel mini-bar. Certainly, the convenience of the mini-bar is there, but you are going to receive less for the money you spend. If you have an event and plan on using the hotel's internal audio visual partner, I implore to you at least give us a chance to submit a cost estimate. It's free, so why not compare? Quite often, we can be just as competitive in price, but our attention to the specific needs and goals of your event will be unmatched. Don't go for the cold and inattentive mini-bar when you can get the consideration and warm feeling your local pub provides.

Joe Mertz Production Consulting, LLC | www.mertzconsulting.com