The biggest issue I have with the example Elliott gives is that the hotel offered the guest a chance to accept or deny the fee, then charged him anyway after he declined it. That’s just wrong on every front.

What’s really interesting, though, is a poll he has that, at the time I took it, showed 81 percent saying hotels should not be allowed to break out mandatory costs when they quote a room rate. IMHO, they can break it out all they like, as long as it’s all disclosed up front so people know what they’ll have to pay at the end of their stay. Would I prefer to have it all rolled into the price? Of course—it’s borderline bizarre to break out the costs for heat, water, and electricity (I won’t go into the mandatory fees for things that should be optional, such as resort fees). But if a hotel feels it’s better customer service to make the customers do math, so be it. Just as long as it’s all disclosed and all the numbers add up.

FYI, If you’re looking for more on international meetings, we have some exhaustive resources on MeetingsNet.com as well, from international destination updates to tips, trends, and how-tos; cost-saving strategies; legal advice; research and white papers; holiday, currency and time-zone resources; and customs and government resources on our International Meeting Guide.

What A/B testing is, according to Wired: “Using A/B, new ideas can be essentially focus-group tested in real time: Without being told, a fraction of users are diverted to a slightly different version of a given web page and their behavior compared against the mass of users on the standard site. If the new version proves superior—gaining more clicks, longer visits, more purchases—it will displace the original; if the new version is inferior, it’s quietly phased out without most users ever seeing it. A/B allows seemingly subjective questions of design—color, layout, image selection, text—to become incontrovertible matters of data-driven social science.”

If you can use this technology to maximize your meeting (and organizational) Web site, wouldn’t that just be the bee’s knees? But what’s easy to do on the Web is a little harder in real life. You can’t control all the variables or truly randomize the testing in the same way. But still, it’s the same concept that has meetings professionals use when they break their marketing program into pieces to address their niches, isn’t it? And when they tweak a piece of the program, introduce something new in formatting without doing away with the old first, then gauge which “works” best (with “works” meaning whatever it means for you, be it learning achieved, new behaviors cemented, information shared, etc.)?

While it makes me uncomfortable to think that it’s not important to understand why certain things work better than others, as the article notes, maybe I need to just let go of that and trust that if the data says something is better, it just is even if I can never figure out why? That has to be better than relying on HiPPOs, right? (HiPPOs being “highest-paid person’s opinion,” as defined in the Wired article.)

Like it or not, we’re living in an increasingly data-driven world, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. I think we just have to be careful not to lose the meaning behind the numbers. Anyway, it’s a fascinating read, and a reminder that, whether we know it or not, we’re all both the scientists and the guinea pigs in the great experiment of life.

What’s your favorite travel tip?

The legislation was filed in response to the rather repulsive General Services Administration meetings debacle that already has resulted in almost $1 million in meeting cancellations. MacMillan, along with the rest of us, is concerned not only about the government meeting planners who are already being affected, but also for the trickle-down effect it will have as government employees are effectively banned from attending and speaking at non-governmental conferences.

As Bruce says in his letter, “Our industry’s message is simple: The gross mismanagement of any public trust should be dealt with immediately and stridently, which it has been. But, that the across-the-board imposition restricting government employee attendance at conferences and events is also negligent and irresponsible and will only further disrupt our nation’s recovering economy.”

As an aside, it’s nice to see this industry’s associations pulling together on this. As well they should, since this could affect all of us.

Send those letters. Make those calls. Today.

1. They capture attendees’ attention with relevance and novelty. And capturing attention can be difficult. People tend to think they’re multitasking, when in fact they’re just switching back and forth between tasks so that no one thing gets their full attention or is stored in long-term memory. “When we build in novelty and provide a multisensory experience, we pop people out of autopilot” and gain their full attention, McEuen said.

2. They inspire a positive emotional climate. Emotions are contagious, she said, and “people adjust their behavior to the emotion of the room.” Emotions also are stored in our memories. So when you reflect on a meeting, the emotions you felt at the time will come back—and it will reflect on how you feel about the organization.

3. Face-to-face meetings are where you build your web of human relationships.

What else do face-to-face gatherings do that other types of communications just can’t quite accomplish? I’d add that the good ones provide a safe place to experiment and try out new ideas and ways of doing things, which emboldens people to actually put what they learn into practice.