Joan Eisenstodt wears a lot of hats: consultant, educator, expert witness, entrepreneur. The esteemed industry veteran is active in many industry organizations and has received numerous prestigious honors, including a PCMA Foundation Lifetime Achievement Award and induction into the Events Industry Council Hall of Leaders. In 1981, she founded Eisenstodt Associates, LLC, a Washington, D.C.-based meeting consulting, facilitation, and training firm. ConventionSouth spoke with Eisenstodt about her passion for inclusion and fair contract negotiation.
What are the biggest issues in contract negotiations between planners and meeting facilities and vendors?
Communications that are not thorough but rather are rushed. A lack of information provided by groups to vendors and venues in RFPs and, in turn, generic proposals returned in response lead to less than complete contracts. The proposals are considered by those sending them to be contracts. They are not. They haven’t been negotiated, and given the limited information provided by groups, especially with widely used electronic RFPs, what is not included is as concerning as what is. Problems result when no one—the sender or recipient—reads proposals and resulting contracts thoroughly and asks questions. In both negotiations and in cases in which I’ve testified, both for groups and hotels, I see the results of poorly written and clarified language and terms. Sometimes, one word can change the meaning of an entire clause.
What is the most crucial factor in improving negotiations?
It is easy to rely on a fill-in-the-blank RFP or revise some language from a past one versus taking time to write something new. In working with clients, I know that even the same meeting booked year after year changes because of conditions, programs, cities, pricing, and more. Now, because we have experienced COVID, just as we changed considerations after 9/11, reviewed changing audience demographics, and encountered laws that may impact how we conduct our meetings, we need to rethink what matters for a particular meeting and put it in writing in the RFP, stating clearly that all we’ve asked must be addressed in the response. One of the most evident changes the pandemic brought was advising venues in RFPs and then in contracts of a meeting’s purpose, that is, why a group is meeting. When COVID restrictions were enacted and it was thought by some that groups could meet if people remained six feet apart, it hadn’t been stated in most RFPs that the purpose of the meeting was peer networking, which necessitated closer contact for people to hear each other or have private conversations. Planners too rarely ask, and hotels and other vendors too rarely display, who owns the company or building in which meetings are held. Planners think the name on the door—the brand—is the entity with which they are contracting. The details matter.
What are some keys to creating more inclusive, safe, and accessible events?
- Know your audience, how it is changing, and what changes you project. Have each aspect of your meeting reflect those who may attend or whom you want to attend.
- Anticipate that participants and exhibitors will have visible or invisible disabilities, and plan for accommodation from destination and site selection moving forward.
- Conduct a security and safety audit at the time of a destination and site inspection. It is a joint effort of the destination, vendors, venues, and group to ensure safety.
- Consider the program design, length, and timing of sessions and between sessions for access and inclusion.
- Invite subject-matter experts (both internal and external) and professional speakers who reflect both your current demographics and those you want to attract.
You’ve served as an expert witness on event attrition and cancellation. Can you discuss some of the problems that can arise from those situations?
I have an old original Bloom County cartoon in which the punchline is ‘Money talks.’ Without revenue, businesses falter or close. Groups, venues, and vendors project revenue that is based on factors negotiated and contracted. When these conditions are not met, more than one party may lose money, which can set in motion reactions that may harm each party. Negotiation goals should be to ensure realistic expectations to make parties whole if the projections are not met and the conditions that may impact the parties not meeting their obligations. It’s a tough balancing act. I have never been a fan of the idea of win-win when negotiating contract terms. Too often, dollars are the only conditions that are first considered; terms can impact
the conditions around attrition, cancellation, and non-performance and are considered less than dollars. I refer to what I said earlier about communications and timing: Incomplete RFPs and proposals and rushed signing of contracts are more likely to result in potential disputes.
