Focus on the Future

As I’ve often opined, when I got into this business decades ago, Destination Marketing Organizations generally played the hand they were dealt. These are your assets. That’s what you promote.

In the ‘90s, we began to realize that if our destination was lacking in certain assets, no amount of marketing would ever be able to compete with destinations that had those assets. For example, if we chose to pursue meetings and conventions, but only had a 30,000 square-foot facility with no breakout rooms, we would consistently lose to a destination that had 100,000 sq.ft. of meeting space with breakout rooms. Our budget might be bigger; our marketing might be edgier. But without a bigger, more sophisticated facility, it just wouldn't matter.

That was the situation I inherited in 1990 when I took the reins of what is now known as Destination Madison. The biggest meeting space we had was a then-40,000 square-foot Holiday Inn, 20 minutes outside of downtown in an adjoining community. And while we worked our asses off to fill that building, a majority of State Associations were bypassing their Capitol City because there wasn't sufficient space in proximity to the Capitol. 

To be sure, there were a handful of DMOs in the ‘80s that advocated for destination-defining upgrades to their asset base. Baltimore's Wayne Chappell comes to mind as a master in changing public opinion to build their convention center. But it really wasn't that common. Most of us were playing the hand we were dealt.

And so maybe that experience in Madison, being part of the team that took to referendum the Frank Lloyd Wright designed convention center known today as Monona Terrace, informed my future as a consultant. As I set out to facilitate strategic plans for DMOs that had previously been facilitated by consultants that had never spent time in a CEO's chair, I pushed the Boards with which I worked to consider advocating for asset development and community redevelopment. Indeed, if the Board was properly constituted with the most influential individuals in town, the Board would have the greatest chance of success to actually see these visions to fruition. And too, if not us...who else would advocate for these types of projects?

And that's what it was through the late ‘90s and the early 2000s. I had the opportunity to inspire Boards to catch fire and be the champions in their community to socialize the coolest of ideas. Then came the recession… and Boards retreated. I get it. It was survival of the fittest and those community influencers needed to focus on their businesses. But that passion for being a community champion was slow to return. The wounds of the recession left too many scars. And, to be honest, I believe the divisive politics that are now in full bloom in our nation we're just beginning to bud.

I saw that flicker of passion rekindle in the second half of the 2010s, only to be extinguished once again by the Plague. And here we are today, blowing on the embers as hard as we can, yet having little success in igniting a fire. It's an unfortunate time… because the most influential leaders in our communities are looking over their shoulder and not into the future.

But, are we inadvertently contributing to this malaise through the structure of DMO Board meetings? 

First off...if your DMO Board meets quarterly, you can't honestly expect them to be community champions. If a community is pursuing a major project, getting together once every three months will never produce the momentum needed to bring that initiative home.

Some will counter that quarterly Board meetings are OK because their Executive Committee meets monthly. But that still isn't good enough, because 4 or 5 people, no matter how influential, can't move a big project forward. And, if this is the organization's governance format, I'll guarantee you that the full Board is either disengaged or doing a slow burn for being marginalized...or both.

The other unintentional trip wire that prevents Boards from being great is the meeting agenda itself. Some DMO CEOs believe they have such a compelling story to tell that they pack the agenda with so much information that there is precious little time for Board conversation. Others we have seen intentionally choreograph the meeting so tightly to actually prevent conversation that could drift into tactical marketing  recommendations, which is not a role of the Board.

While that strategy risks Board discontent...the bigger fail is that it doesn't allow your biggest supporters to get excited about destination development. We've been steadfast about this in both our books on Destination Leadership...the Board must have time to discuss and debate the future. Yes, they need to know that staff is hitting their marks and see the new campaigns. But they also need at least 20-30 minutes every meeting to be visionary on behalf of the community.

Isn't that why they are there? To move the organization and destination forward? And, beyond visionary...we also need them to play defense.

We recently saw a post by a City Council candidate that is running on the notion that we don't need pretty railings on bridges and we don't need fancy lighting downtown and we don't need to support arts and culture. If elected, his community will assuredly be diminished as visitor spending declines...along with new resident interest and future investment. Somebody needs to push back on this kind of ideology. And that someone is the DMO Board.

Go light a fire. Let 'em talk. Let them be the leaders they are destined to be. Your community needs their voice.

Til next time,

Bill

View this entire Z