EVALUATING EVENT CONCEPTS SURVEY

Introduction

Events can help non-profit and profit organizations to raise substantial funds around the world. There is a gap in data collected on successful event concepts for non-profit organizations held in Kingston, ON, resulting in an opportunity for research.

This proposal will provide insight that will help in determining the attractiveness and probability of success of event concepts for the Canadian National Institute for the Blind held in the Kingston region. The research will be completed through a Market Opportunity Analysis.

Background

During the 1990s, development of infrastructure and government cooperation with private coordinators resulted in strong growth in the number of special events held in Canada (Government of Canada, 2013). Since 2003 there has been steady growth in smaller events and sustained growth in large scale events, due to the expansion of hospitality infrastructure.

In this industry, festivals, exhibitions, and specialty trade shows are a growing event trends (Government of Canada, 2013). Core trends are anticipated to continue into the future, but at a slightly slower rate than in the past, due to the steady growth in the industry, it is expected that the number of event planning occupations will significantly increase in time (Government of Canada, 2013).

Some of Canada’s most well-known non-profit organizations, including the Canadian Cancer Society, the Canadian Red Cross, the United Way Toronto, and the Heart & Stroke Foundation of Canada, utilize events as a vehicle for fundraising (Charity Intelligence Canada, 2013). One of the notable largest events held in the past year was the Red Cross Annual Fundraising event which took place in Montreal in May 2014 and raised $1.02 million (Charity Intelligence Canada, 2013).

The Canadian National Institute for the Blind is a Canadian non-profit organization devoted to providing personalized rehabilitation support for Canadians who are blind or partially sighted (CNIB, 2015). In 2014, CNIB held a successful fundraising event in Kingston, ON called Dining in the Dark with Clark. (CNIB, 2015)

Research Objectives

To discover and evaluate past events executed by the organization and similar organizations

To discover success rates of current event trends To determine if there is any significance found in the correlation between the

event budget allocated and funds raised

1

To discover patterns of success factors for event execution To determine benchmarks of costs for event execution

Research Framework

The research framework below outlines the focus of questions and data needed to draw conclusions about the problem. The data from each method will be analyzed together to determine the best results.

What are the top event trends in the Kingston region? Does the event budget impact amount of funds raised? What are the key success factors in successful event planning? What event concepts have been completed by CNIB and similar Canadian

organizations? What are some industry cost benchmarks of event execution? What are the most common marketing tactics used in the Canadian event

industry? What are the most common obstacles encountered by professional event

planners? How many people are needed for event planning and execution based on

size of event? What is the average reach of people from city-wide events held in

Kingston, ON? What types of venues are most commonly used in the Kingston, ON and

surrounding areas for event execution? What types of organizations regularly hold fundraising events? How common are event concepts executed annually in Kingston, ON?

Research Methods

The research will take place in the form of two methods. The first method of research will be conducted through formal interviews with ten professionals working in event management. The research is targeted to event management professionals working for organizations similar to CNIB in Kingston, ON and surrounding areas.

The formal interviews will take place in person at the location most convenient to the participant, it is expected the interviews will be held at the participants place of work. Interviews will be held for no longer than 30 minutes and all interviews will be scheduled previous to beginning research. If participants are unable to be formally interviewed in person, the interview subject will be contacted over the phone or via a web communication service such as Skype.

The interviews will be scheduled directly by initially communicating with prospective participants verbally or in writing. Prospective participants contact information will be

2

collected by contacting organizations or prospects directly, research from company websites and social media sites such as LinkedIn. A list of prospective participants for formal interviews will be complied by the researcher prior to the research being executed.

The second method of research will be a survey of 100 workers in event management across Ontario. The chosen sample size is expected to have a 10% margin of error (Science Buddies, 2015).The survey will be made available online via social network sites including Facebook and LinkedIn. Promotion of the survey will outline the pre-requisite of a desired participant as having an experienced professional in the event management industry. Executing the survey online will ensure randomness of the sample.

The research is expected to take a total of one month, with three weeks collecting survey data with scheduled formal interviews throughout this period and the remaining week dedicated to analysis and preparation of research findings. The data will be collected and input into an Excel database for analysis. The research is estimated to cost approximately $50.00 to cover travel costs to interview locations and material supplies including paper and pens.

Anticipated limitations of research include unrealistic time frame due to scheduling limitations and ensuring an accurate sample because contact information for ideal prospective participants may not be readily available. As well, we will not be able to fully verify the characteristics of online participants such as employment experience or demographic characteristics.

Method

Overall Design

This researched was gathered in an anonymous survey format. Various question types were used, including text response, yes/no answers, multiple choice, dropdown menu, sliders, and a multiple-choice grid. The survey was distributed to 38 event planners/managers through student e-mail, social media including Facebook and Twitter and in person.

To ensure significance in the statistical tests, at least 30 surveys were required. Given the specific parameters of the survey, and time limitations, the results of the sample were accurate and representative of the population. For the purposes of this research project, both qualitative and quantitative data were captured, and the analysis of said data was interpreted through SPSS and Microsoft Excel. This analysis provided the researchers with key insights about event planning and effective event concepts.

3

Survey Variables

The dependant variables used in this survey included funds raised; time taken to plan the event; obstacles encountered during planning; theme of the event; event advertising/promotion; type of venue; event cost; people involved in execution of the event; length of the event; and effectiveness of the event.

The question methods used a nominal technique and were captured through questionnaire types such as multiple choice, slider, drop down and text response. The independent variables used in this survey included area the organization operates in; type of organization being operated (e.g. profit or non-profit); how long the organization has been in existence; and the main purpose of the event.

Survey Construction

All questions in the survey were created by the researchers to determine the effectiveness of event concepts, and how each factor can affect the outcome and success of an event. The following factors were considered when the survey was being constructed:

How should the question be positioned to gain the most insightful answer? What types of questions would demonstrate the research objective in a clear and

concise manner? How to avoid bias and maintain anonymity in the questions. What demographic questions were necessary to create more effective and

usable results?

The researchers constructed the survey with the intention of creating 20 questions that covered all factors of the event planning process. The survey questions were positioned to allow a wide variety of event planners, to be capable to complete it with ease. This was to ensure that all answers would be accurate and reliable. Before the survey was deployed Market Research Professor, Melanie Christian reviewed and approved the questions.

Sampling Execution

Once the survey was submitted and approved, it was deployed onto FluidSurvey.com. Initially, the survey was distributed on social media platforms including LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter. This involved both researchers disbursing the survey on event planning pages, posting statuses and communicating with their network to produce a large reach by having the members of the network like, share and repost the survey.

The researchers then contacted the Dean of the School of Business, John Conrad, who then shared the survey with the faculty of St. Lawrence College via e-mail. Finally, the researchers directly contacted event planners in person and by e-mail and requested that they do the survey one-on-one.

Results – Primary

4

Description of Respondents in Sample

The survey sample consisted of 38 participants, representing more non-profit than for-profit organizations as shown in Figure 1.1. The sample includes a range of organization sizes from local to international; operating across various industries.

Survey Results

Figure 1.1 Types of Organizations

Figure 1.2 Outreach of Organizations

5

Of the organizations sampled, approximately 55% operate in their local area. Provincial organizations were the least common type sampled.

Figure 2.1 Event Costs by Industry

6

As shown in Figure 2.1, the sample is highly skewed to represent organizations in non-traditional areas as outlined in the research survey.

The graph indicates that the cost associated with executing the event by type of organization. The Business sector appears to spend the least amount of money, on average, to execute non-profit events among the categories defined. In contrast, events executed in non-traditional industries appear to have higher costs associated with event execution. (*Due to the skewedness of the sample, and not having an appropriate number of participants from each industry, this conclusion cannot be determined as representative of the Canadian event industry population. This can only be used based on the data provided for the purposes of this analysis.)

Figure 2.2 Primary Event Purpose

7

Once the sample collected had been defined, the data were analyzed to conclude the main purpose of each event described. The research shows the majority of events were executed with the primary goal of raising funds. Beyond the other category, the next most common reason for executing an event was engaging the public.

Figure 2.3 Average Event Length

8

Based on the research collected, the average length of events executed is between 4 and 6 hours, as shown in Figure 2.3.

Figure 2.4 Most Popular Event Themes

9

Figure 2.4 outlines the themes used for events described in the sample. The data shows the “Other” category (defined in this graph as not a Holiday, Dinner, Gala, Fundraiser, Celebration, Sport, Conference, or School event) to be the most common event theme. This analysis shows that unique or non-traditional event themes are the most commonly executed. The second most common theme is the Sports theme.

Figure 2.5 Most Popular Event Venues

10

The data collected provided some insight into the popularity of venues used by event planners. As shown in Figure 2.5, the most common event venues used fall into the categories of educational institutions and other, while the least popular venue was Restaurants.

Figure 2.6 Event Occurrence

11

The research outlines a pattern in the occurrence of events described by survey respondents. In Figure 2.6, over 75% of the respondents surveyed executed annual events. These data provided a consideration for analyzing the research, as the events described are executed yearly. This means the event could already have strong connections with attendees, influencing the marketing efforts required.

Figure 2.7 Most Common Obstacles

12

Time

Budget

Logisti

cs

RSVP/Attendance

Adverti

sing/P

romotions

Organizational S

kills

Legal

Other0

5

10

15

20

25

Most Common Obstacles Encountered by Event Planners

To understand the influencing factors of successful event planning in Canada, the research had to include data on obstacles encountered by event planners. The analysis determined that the most common obstacle faced was RSVPs/Attendance, as show in figure 2.7. This seems logical, as a challenging part of a successful event is generating attendance, and confirming that attendees will show up.

The second most common obstacle encountered was the budget for the event. For example the budget allocated was insufficient. The budgeting portion of event planning was shown to include more challenges than other obstacles such as lack of organizational skills or legal requirements.

Figure 2.8 Most Common Event Marketing Tactics

13

Digital/Online Exclusive Other Out of Home Public Relations Word of Mouth0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Most Common Marketing Tactics Used in the Canadian Event Industry

Yes No None

Marketing Tactics

Num

ber o

f Res

pond

ents

According to the research collected, the most common marketing tactics used in the Canadian event planning industry are word of mouth, digital/online, and public relations. The least common marketing tactic used for event planning was out of home advertising with almost one quarter of the participants exclaiming they did not use out of home as a marketing tactic.

14

Figure 3.1 How much of the funds raised were explained by the total cost of the event and the event theme?

Model Summary

Model RR

SquareAdjusted R

SquareStd. Error of the

Estimate

1 .705a .497 .466 72704.992

a. Predictors: (Constant), What was the theme of the event? How much did the event cost in total?

ANOVAa

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 172220365015.966 2 86110182507.983 16.290 .000b

Residual 174438523872.923 33 5286015874.937

Total 346658888888.889 35

a. Dependent Variable: In the previous question if you chose Fundraising as the main purpose, how much funds were raisedb. Predictors: (Constant), What was the theme of the event? How much did the event cost in total?

Coefficientsa

Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

t Sig.B Std. Error Beta

1 (Constant) 57747.842 25977.320 2.223 .033

How much did the event cost in total?

.461 .081 .716 5.657 .000

What was the theme of the event?

-8665.260 4387.184 -.250 -1.975 .057

a. Dependent Variable: In the previous question if you chose Fundraising as the main purpose, how much funds were raised

As shown in figure 3.1, the combination of the cost and the theme of the event explained 46.6% of the variation in total funds raised. The cost of the event shows a significant correlation with the amount of funds raised as described further in Figure 3.2 below. The theme of the event is not a statistically significant predictor of the funds raised but, with a significance level of .057, it is close to being statistically significant. This suggests that with the inclusion of additional survey respondents, a significant

15

relationship could be found and conclusions drawn on the most successful event themes based on funds raised.

Figure 3.2 Correlation between Event Cost and Funds Raised

The research was analyzed with the hypothesis of finding a statically significant correlation between the cost of the event and the amount of funds raised. As shown above in Figure 3.2, 43.7% of the funds raised can be explained by the variation in the total event cost. This analysis outlines a strong, positive, and statistically significant relationship between the cost of the event and the amount of funds raised. This means the amount allocated for the budget of the event impacts the amount of funds that will be raised by the event. There is a strong positive relationship, meaning that the higher the cost of an event (or budget allocated), the more funds will likely be raised.

16

Figure 3.3 Correlation between Attendance and Funds Raised

Model Summary

Model RR

SquareAdjusted R

SquareStd. Error of the

Estimate

1 .195a .038 .010 808.217

a. Predictors: (Constant), In the previous question if you chose Fundraising as the main purpose, how much funds were raised

ANOVAa

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 875816.668 1 875816.668 1.341 .255b

Residual 22209327.638 34 653215.519

Total 23085144.306 35

a. Dependent Variable: How many people attended the event?

b. Predictors: (Constant), In the previous question if you chose Fundraising as the main purpose, how much funds were raised

Coefficientsa

Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

t Sig.B Std. Error Beta

1 (Constant) 459.922 142.250 3.233 .003

In the previous question if you chose Fundraising as the main purpose, how much funds were raised

.001 .001 .195 1.158 .255

a. Dependent Variable: How many people attended the event?

The research was analyzed with the hypothesis of finding a statistically significant correlation between the attendance and funds raised in events. The research results do

17

not provide enough evidence to support the hypothesis with a significance level of .255; resulting in the hypothesis being rejected. Therefore, the number of people in attendance cannot be concluded as a significant predictor of the funds raised at events.

Figure 3.4 Relationship between the Number of People Involved in Execution and the Number of People in Attendance

Model Summary

Model RR

SquareAdjusted R

SquareStd. Error of the

Estimate

1 .407a .165 .141 752.746

a. Predictors: (Constant), How many people were involved in the execution of the event?

ANOVAa

ModelSum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 3819826.047 1 3819826.047 6.741 .014b

Residual 19265318.259 34 566627.008

Total 23085144.306 35

a. Dependent Variable: How many people attended the event?

b. Predictors: (Constant), How many people were involved in the execution of the event?

Coefficientsa

Model

Unstandardized CoefficientsStandardized Coefficients

t Sig.B Std. Error Beta

1 (Constant) 341.383 141.780 2.408 .022

How many people were involved in the execution of the event?

2.828 1.089 .407 2.596 .014

a. Dependent Variable: How many people attended the event?

18

The research does not reject the hypothesis of a statistically significant relationship between the number of people involved in the execution of an event and the number of event attendees. The analysis shows 16.5% of the variance in the number of people involved in the execution is explained by the number of attendees. This provides valuable insights into the industry, as event planners can estimate the number of people needed for execution based on the number of expected attendees.

Figure 3.5 Funds Raised between Different Industries

ANOVAIn the previous question if you chose Fundraising as the main purpose, how much funds were raised

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups

296554096428.572 3 98851365476.190 3.329 .032

Within Groups 950350903571.429 32 29698465736.607Total 1246905000000.000 35

The analysis shown in Figure 3.5 determined a significance level of .032. This concludes that there is a significant difference in the amount of funds raised between the industries sampled. As shown in Figure 3.6, the sample is representative of the population based on industries sampled. This ensures the data collected was reliable enough to draw conclusions from.

Figure 3.6 Industry Groupings Sample for Analysis

19

Figure 3.7 Funds Raised between Profit and Non-Profit Organizations

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test

for Equality of

Variances t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. t df

Sig.

(2-

tailed)

Mean

Difference

Std. Error

Difference

95% Confidence Interval

of the Difference

Lower Upper

In the previous

question if you

chose Fundraising

Equal

variances

assumed6.988 .012 -1.475 34 .149 -95016.722 64420.688 -225935.312 35901.868

20

as the main

purpose, how much

funds were raised

Equal

variances

not

assumed

-1.973 22.100 .061 -95016.722 48163.351 -194875.078 4841.633

What type of organization? N Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

In the previous question if you chose Fundraising as the main purpose, how much funds were raised

Profit 13 2461.54 8292.722 2299.987

Non-Profit

23 97478.26 230719.797 48108.403

As shown in Figure 3.7 the hypothesis tested for a statistical significance of the amount of funds raised being determined by the type of organization (for-profit or non-profit). The results found did not provide enough evidence to support the hypothesis with a significance level of .061 found. The result is close to the required significance level of 0.05, meaning with an increased sample size the research has a high probability to find statistical significance in this analysis.

Limitations

In this research project certain limitations created constraints on the accuracy of results. If more time had been available to this project, the researchers would have been able to implement a stronger communication process to connect with prospective participants. This would have allowed the researchers to reach out to communities outside of Kingston, and it would have given participants more time to fill out the survey and share it with their friends, family, and co-workers.

Another limitation the researchers faced was the specific requirements of the participants needed to achieve accurate results. This limited the number of possible participants because few known event planners were in the researchers’ networks.

Surveying more subjects would have created more accurate and reliable data. In the future, the researchers plan to implement a strong communications plan, go directly to organizations, and create focus groups to find more subjects and create a stronger data set. The researchers must gather a broader sample of participants by focusing on geographic segmentation, meaning that there must be a representative sample from

21

each Canadian province. The researchers will also survey participants by industry (e.g. veterinary/animal industry, restaurant/hospitality industry, etc.), as well as by venue.

In this research project, the “other” category was a limitation that was not recognized until the data had already been collected. This caused discrepancies and did not allow the researchers to ascertain additional understanding of event concepts such as themes, venues, and event functions. In the future, the survey questions will include more inclusive categories to avoid this obstacle.

Conclusions and Recommendations

In conclusion, the hypothesis of a significant correlation between the event cost and funds raised has been proven to be highly statistically significant with less than 0.0001% chance of error. The hypothesis of a significant relationship between the event theme and funds raised was rejected, due to not enough evidence to support the relationship. These findings support our recommendations for the research.

We recommend that Canadian event planners determine their event budget with strong consideration of the desired amount of funds to be raised. With higher fundraising goals, event planners can anticipate higher event costs associated. Also, when determining the anticipated success of an event, the theme itself is not a significant predictor. Including an analysis of multiple factors in planning - such as marketing tactics and outreach of the number of people involved in planning - can assist event planners to anticipate and drive desired outcomes.

Appendices

Table #1: Survey

Evaluating Event ConceptsThe ideal participant for this survey is a person with experience working in event planning, or has planned a professional event. All data collected in this survey will be confidential, by completing this survey you provide your consent to participate and any participant is able to withdraw at any time.

What area does your organization operate in? Business Health (I.E. Cancer charities) Education/Child Welfare Animal/Wildlife Natural Resources Cultural

22

Other

What type of organization? Profit Non-Profit

How long has your organization been in existence?

Describe the outreach of your charitable organization. Local Provincial National (Canadian) International

What was the theme of the event?Describe in 5 words or less.

What was the main purpose of the event? Fundraising Brand Awareness Engaging the Public Celebration Other

In the previous question if you chose Fundraising as the main purpose, how much funds were raised?If you chose a different purpose please ignore this question.

How much funds were raised?If you chose a different purpose please ignore this question.

What is the occurrence of the event? Annual One-time

23

Monthly Semi-Annual Other

How long did it take to plan the event?Answer in hours.

How many people were involved in the planning of the event?

What obstacles did you encounter during planning?Choose all that apply.

Time management Budget allocation Logistics RSVP/Attendance Advertising/promotions Organization Legal constraints Other

How did you advertise/promote the event?

Please provide an answer for each row.

Yes No

Digital/Online (eg. Social Media)

Exclusive (advertised to invited guests only)

Other

Out of Home (eg. billboard, posters)

Public Relations (eg. Press

24

Yes No

Release, Radio)

Word of Mouth

What type of venue was the event held at?Choose the option that best describes the venue.

How much did the event cost in total?

How many people were involved in the execution of the event?

How long was the event? 1 hour 2-3 hours 4-6 hours 6-12 hours 1 day

How many people attended the event?

In your opinion, what went well?

In your opinion, what went poorly?

Based on your experience with charitable events (runs for cancer, charitable galas, etc.) how effective do you feel these are at raising necessary funds/awareness?

25

Not at all effective - 0 Extremely effective - 100

References

Charity Intelligence Canada. (2013). Canada's 10 largest charities . Retrieved from: http://www.charityintelligence.ca/canadas-top-10-largest-charities

CNIB. (2015). About us. Retrieved from: http://www.cnib.ca/en/about/Pages/default.aspx

CNIB. (2015). Kingston visions gala - Dining in the dark with clark. Retrieved from: http://cnib.ca/en/ontario/events/Pages/kingston-visions-gala.aspx

Government of Canada. (2013). Conference and event planners. Retrieved from: http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/qc/job_futures/statistics/1226.shtml

Science Buddies. (2015). Sample size: how many survey participants do i need? . Retrieved from: http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_ideas/Soc_participants.shtml

26

27