"Mica said he was unsure but hopeful that despite belt tightening and travel costs the GAC conference would top the 5,000 from 2007 noting, however, the trade group is running a heavy ad schedule “doing mailings, videos, using league publications—everything we can” to ensure a strong industry presence in February."
Hello!? While I do agree that this is certainly a good time to tell the credit union story to new, incoming congressional leaders, why don't the powers that be use their marketing budget to subsidize the attendance of credit union CEO's and Board Chairs. If the message is truly the most important part of the outreach, then a simple "the trip is on us" offering would speak volumes about what the GAC is truly all about - the personal interaction between credit union and congressional leaders.
From my perspective, a marketing effort to encourage credit union leaders to attend a conference at this time seems like money wasted. The credit union leaders that I know are diligently working to cut all expenses that do not directly support members in this time of need. While meeting congressional leaders is important, it is certainly not more important than meeting member needs.
Which brings me to subsidizing the event. Why force credit union leaders make the choice? Drop the $895 attendee fee and run the conference at break even - or even a loss? If this is all about credit unions, then this time of "belt tightening and travel costs" should serve as an opportunity for the association to give back to credit union members.
This enhanced spending on marketing seems like an effort merely to break an attendance record than to truly serve the industry.
