Over the past decade, Australia’s national business events sector has experienced a marked shift in how destinations compete for business events. Once, the decision to host in a particular city or region was a balance of strategic location, accessibility, facilities, local expertise, and the intangible but crucial sense of “fit” between destination and delegate. Today, an increasingly dominant factor has entered the equation: subvention.
The practice of offering direct financial incentives to attract events is not new. Subvention has long been part of the international bidding landscape, especially in competitive global markets where destination marketing organisations (DMOs) fight to win prestigious international congresses. But in Australia’s domestic business events market, we are seeing an escalation — not just in the size of these cash incentives, but in the expectation that they will be part of any proposal.
This is no longer a competitive advantage; it is becoming an entry requirement.
The Culture of Expectation
Conversations with colleagues, clients, and industry partners reveal the same sentiment: if a destination isn’t offering cash, it’s not even in the running.
This cultural shift has profound implications. When subvention becomes a given, rather than an optional extra, the conversation around destination choice narrows. Instead of evaluating the full scope of value a location offers — such as delegate experience, networking opportunities, or industry alignment — the focus tilts towards the size of the cheque.
For associations, particularly those operating on tight margins, the appeal is obvious. Cash support can help ensure an event is financially viable, underwrite program enhancements, or cover unexpected costs. But with this shift comes a series of dangers that threaten the sustainability, transparency, and even the ethical fabric of our industry.
The Dependency Dilemma
One of the most troubling developments is the dependency that subvention is creating. Many associations are now structuring their event budgets with the assumption that cash funding will be secured. Without it, the event may be deemed unviable or unable to achieve the surplus needed to support the organisation’s broader activities.
This dependency changes how associations approach financial planning. Instead of viewing subvention as a bonus — a means to enhance the delegate experience or take calculated risks with program innovation — it is becoming a critical revenue line.
The problem with this model is clear: if destinations scale back or remove subvention programs, these events could face sudden financial shortfalls. Associations that have not built in contingency measures may be forced to slash budgets, compromise on quality, or even cancel.
In effect, subvention has moved from a strategic lever to a financial crutch.
Inflated Expectations and Over-Quoting
Another consequence is the inflation of delegate projections to secure higher subvention amounts.
Because many subvention models are tiered — offering more funding for larger delegate numbers — the temptation to “optimistically” forecast attendance is strong. Sometimes this is unintentional optimism, but too often, it crosses into deliberate over-quoting.
This is risky for several reasons:
The short-term win of inflated subvention can create long-term damage to the broader ecosystem.
The Moral Question for PCOs
Professional Conference Organisers (PCOs) sit in a unique — and sometimes uncomfortable — position in this conversation. As the architect and manager of many bids, we are the ones negotiating subvention, compiling budgets, and balancing client needs with destination expectations.
A question that our profession must be willing to ask ourselves is: what is our role and responsibility when subvention funds are part of the deal?
In many cases, subvention is rightly applied to reduce delegate fees, enhance program delivery, or increase marketing reach. But there is also a temptation — whether through fee structures, budget allocations, or less-than-transparent accounting — for PCOs to use subvention to supplement their own earnings.
While this may not breach contractual obligations, it does raise ethical considerations:
Without clear standards and open discussion, we risk undermining the very credibility on which our professional relationships are built.
The Wider Impact on Destinations
Destinations, too, are caught in this cycle. Once they begin offering cash subvention, it is very difficult to stop without being perceived as less competitive.
Yet, the ongoing requirement to provide cash can strain budgets, particularly for regional destinations with smaller economic bases. These regions may be excluded from consideration entirely, not because they lack quality venues or compelling delegate experiences, but because they cannot match the cash offers of other cities.
The irony is that these smaller destinations often provide the most memorable and impactful delegate experiences — but they are increasingly locked out of the bidding process.
The Competitive Arms Race
What we are seeing is effectively a subvention “arms race”. As more destinations offer cash, the amounts creep higher. Associations come to expect more. Destinations stretch budgets further. And soon, the incentive that was meant to differentiate has become the minimum buy-in for the game.
This is not sustainable. At some point, either the funds will dry up or the ROI will no longer justify the outlay. When that happens, the associations that have built subvention into their operating model will be left scrambling.
A Path Forward: Rethinking Subvention
This is not an argument to eliminate subvention entirely. Used strategically, it can be a powerful tool to attract events, stimulate local economies, and enhance delegate experience. But we must recalibrate how it is approached and applied.
Here are some principles worth considering:
The Role of Industry Leadership
As leaders in the business events sector, we have a responsibility to shape practices that safeguard the long-term sustainability of our industry. Subvention should remain a strategic enabler, not a compulsory line item.
This requires difficult conversations — with clients, with destinations, and sometimes with our own teams. It means pushing back on inflated delegate forecasts, even if it risks losing a bid. It means being transparent about our fees and margins, even if that invites scrutiny.
It also means acknowledging that the true value of a destination extends beyond the size of its subvention offer. We owe it to our clients, our partners, and our profession to champion a broader, more balanced view of what makes an event successful.
Conclusion: Time for a Reset
The culture of expectation around subvention in Australia’s national business events has reached a tipping point. If left unchecked, it risks creating a fragile, dependency-driven model that undermines trust, narrows destination choice, and erodes the ethical foundations of our work.
The answer is not to reject subvention, but to use it wisely — transparently, ethically, and strategically. By doing so, we can ensure that business events continue to thrive, destinations compete fairly, and our industry maintains the credibility that is essential to its future.
This is the conversation we need to have — now, before the cheques stop coming and the cracks begin to show.