By Catherine Chaulet
Earlier this month, I found myself in the Cambridge Union Chamber, where generations of thinkers have debated consequential ideas, arguing a motion close to home for our industry: “This house believes the integrity of familiarization trips is being compromised.”
We lost the vote, 108 to 80, but I came away feeling the conversation itself was a win.
The Alliance of Independent Event Agencies hosts the Industry Great Debate annually, and this year’s motion was designed to provoke discussion. I joined Katie Niland from The Belfry Hotel & Resort and Chris Clarke from Purple Dog Solutions on the proposition side. Opposing us were Andrew Woods (Leonardo Hotels), Peter Jackson (Red Blaze Trust), and Emma Waycot (Vine Tree Connections).
Photo credit: Jason Mardell
The room was full with hotels, agencies, DMCs, representation companies, and the number of hands raised to interject made clear this topic resonates across our industry.
Why Argue This Motion?
I want to address this directly: I believe in FAM trips. At Global DMC Partners, we invest real time, creativity, and resources in them because we’ve seen what they accomplish. A well-executed FAM creates destination advocates who sell with genuine knowledge. It builds relationships that no digital communication can replicate. It remains one of the most effective business development tools our industry has.
But precisely because FAMs matter, I think we owe them honest examination.
From a DMC perspective, where every FAM represents tangible costs and opportunity investment, I’ve observed patterns worth discussing. Trips that conclude with no metrics and no follow-through. Qualification processes that don’t always ensure attendees have genuine buying authority. The same individuals appearing repeatedly, not necessarily because they’re building knowledge, but because they’ve become skilled at securing invitations.
Katie Niland captured something many of us recognize: somewhere along the way, the professional FAM can quietly shift toward something more leisurely, and we’ve all, to some degree, gone along with it.
When qualification standards drift, suppliers find themselves hosting attendees who aren’t decision-makers. When agencies position FAMs as perks rather than professional development, attendees may arrive with different expectations. When there’s no framework for follow-up, even well-intentioned participants may not convert their experience into business outcomes.
Chris Clarke framed it well: “A FAM trip exists to educate…through inclusion in real proposals for real business. That’s the social contract.” When both sides honor that contract, FAMs deliver extraordinary value.
Photo credit: Jason Mardell
Suppliers Have Work to Do, Too
I made sure to acknowledge that drift happens on both sides. Some venues treat FAMs as extended showcases for their property alone, keeping guests on-site rather than demonstrating how they fit within the broader destination. Planners leave understanding the facilities but not the culture or context that makes a destination compelling.
When destinations skip working with experienced DMCs and MICE specialists, they miss the opportunity to show how a real program would actually operate. And uninspired, formulaic itineraries signal a lack of investment that planners will notice.
A Path Forward
I left Cambridge more convinced than ever that shared standards would strengthen our industry, not to create barriers, but to clarify expectations and protect something valuable:
- Transparent qualification criteria: active pipeline, decision-making authority, relevant client base, communicated clearly so everyone understands the expectations.
- Mutual accountability: participants committing to meaningful follow-up, whether a debrief, a written assessment, or inclusion in client proposals within a reasonable timeframe
- Purpose-driven itineraries: depth over breadth, with time for genuine exploration and meaningful conversations
- Tracking and measurement: following up and learning from outcomes to inform future investments
FAMs remain essential. They build knowledge, relationships, and business in ways nothing else can replicate. The question isn’t whether they have value; it’s whether we care enough to keep them at their best.
The vote went to the nays, but I’d like to think the real outcome was a shared commitment to that goal.
