Log In
Planners’ concerns have shifted more heavily to trade and tariffs, with four out of five respondents citing a funding loss and a notable increase in logistical and cost-based challenges. Photo courtesy Jacob Slaton / Whatever Media Group
Major policy changes, on-again, off-again tariffs, and federal budget cuts in the first half of 2025 under the current administration are being felt in different ways by different events professionals. And things remain in flux, so it’s critical to keep our finger on the pulse of how professionals are navigating a shifting events landscape.
We sent our first pulse survey to the events community in April (more than 175 participated) and the second in May (108 respondents), tweaking the questions and adding new ones to gain deeper insights. Event professionals who responded to each pulse survey were similar in background: Nine out of 10 are U.S. based and the majority work for associations and nonprofits. So, what has changed?
In April, the dominant focus was on the impact of executive orders, particularly around DEI and federal employee travel freezes. In May, concerns shifted more heavily to trade and tariffs, with four out of five respondents citing a funding loss and a notable increase in logistical and cost-based challenges.
Click to view some of these results as a shareable infographic.
In the first pulse survey, more than three-quarters of respondents said attendance was down at their events, but much of the data was qualitative. In May, respondents indicated that attendance drop-offs could be clearly measured, with 43 percent projecting declines and 39 percent reporting actual declines. In other words, anticipated impacts in April were now materializing in concrete attendance numbers in May.
How are event organizers responding? Communication and risk mitigation are still weak spots. In the first survey, only 19 percent said they had updated their travel-related communication to address travel policy changes. In May, that percentage rose by 13 points but one-third still report doing nothing at all. Preparedness is lagging behind concerns — and that may be because changes keep coming and we lack certainty about what may be next.
Here are highlights of the results of the most recent survey.
Other responses include: fear for health while attending and more participants moving to online out of fears around border crossing.
Other responses include: businesses waiting and not willing to spend money; fear of inadequate medical attention at destination; travel freezes; concerns over travel as a trans or LGBTQ+ person; hiring freeze; economic uncertainty; DEI under attack; economic concerns.
In the first survey, more than half of respondents said they had not made any changes to their event content or speaker selection in response to the political climate and only 19 percent had updated or added travel-related communications to support international attendees. Around three-quarters of respondents had not made changes to their contracts in light of the current administration policy changes.
Regarding offering hybrid access, some respondents said they are fully streaming or restructuring events to accommodate virtual audiences, while others are taking a more targeted or strategic approach — limiting access to select sessions or using it as a revenue stream. A small subset is deliberately minimizing virtual offerings to preserve in-person engagement.
Some of the open-ended responses include:
“We allowed accepted presenters to request virtual attendance on in-person panels for reasons specific to international travel concerns and accepted limited numbers. All panels will remain in person but presenters can participate on Zoom. Approximately 20 percent of panels are moving forward with this hybrid option.”
“Sessions are in-person or online. We allow session organizers to select which one and change the preference at least once if circumstances change.”
“Offering a post-event digital pass to access recorded premium content.”
“We are looking to create a new virtual conference to meet the needs of those unable (or unwilling) to travel to in-person meetings.”
“We offered free on-demand access to those with funding impact. They joined for a discount and received on-demand access for two months free.”
Most planners reported modest international participation. Only a small number of events (under 10) reported that more than half of their attendees were international.
*N/A or first-time event
2%
Survey analysis by Convene’s digital media editor Magdalina Atanassova and editor in chief Michelle Russell.