TAAI, Tired, Trying

Point Blank - By Hugh & Colleen Gantzer

Did we enjoy TAAI 2003? Yes, indeed. Did we find it useful? Very useful. Did we get a good return on our investments of time, effort and money?Absolutely. It was more than worth while, did none of the delegates complain to us about TAAI 2003? Ah Now, that is a different matter. So, to clear the air right at the beginning, we will lay our cards on the table.

To start with we are both travel writers and one of us is a member of TAAI. We do not go to TAAI conventions to buy anything or sell anything. In fact, ever since one of us became a TAAI member we have scrupulously avoided doing any writing during the convention. We go there to meet old friends, make new ones; learn what has been happening in the tourism scene, what hasn’t happened, what’s likely to happen. Our constituency is the traveller, our currency is information, and our equity is credibility. The TAAI convention, for us, is a veritable cornucopia that serves us in good stead for much of the following year.

We could go on in that strain but we feel we have made our point. Our needs and motivations are quite specific and obviously, don’t reflect those of the other members of TAAI. But, as travel journalists, who have been attending the TAAI conventions since 1979. We do get a lot of feedback, much more than the committee does. And those impressions of TAAI 2003 were not good.

The Location

"Genting is mela-oriented. How can we expect any serious discussions when there is so much noise, so many distractions, around?" And, "They claim that they are geared for conventions and conferences but the Genting Hotel couldn’t even handle breakfast every day!" We don’t agree with the noise and distractions argument: the GICC was insulated from the razzmatazz very effectively. Yes, breakfast arrangements did breakdown every day but you can’t blame TAAI for the hotel’s inadequacies.

Business Sessions

"Badly organised: listed speakers did not turn up. Those who spoke fumbled, droned up and on, had nothing new to say." And, as a very senior member put it, "This one had the lowest intellectual content I have every experienced in any TAAI convention." Sadly, we have to agree. We sat through the domestic tourism session, walked out of some, did not attend many because the subjects were uninteresting. And many of the moderators vacillated, shuffled papers and couldn’t make any of their panelists toe the line. One speaker even gave a long spiel on his own product. Another admitted that he did not know the meaning of the subject. ‘What’ he asked pathetically ‘is the Real Mccoy?’

Child Policy said the convention brochure, ‘Children below 12 years of age will not be permitted to participate in the official functions such as...lunches and dinners’. Clearly, therefore, those diminutive people we saw scuttling around must have been a race of midgets specially imported for the convention!

Seriously, however, virtually every delegate we spoke to felt short-changed by the deplorable quality of the business sessions. Either TAAI is losing its relevance among those who matter or those who mattered in TAAI had neither the cluefullness nor the clout to invite those who mattered outside. Significantly, both Rathi Vinay Jha, secretary tourism, and Amitabh Kant, joint secretary tourism were listed as moderators in two separate panels; neither turned up. Does anyone have the courage to find out why they didn’t and to pass on these revelations to TAAI members? Or is it one of those North Indian ‘Leave it, yaar’ questions?

Questions

Talking about questions reminds us: What happened to the traditional question and answer sessions after every business session? Year after successive year, the TAAI committee seems to be fighting shy of allowing their panelists to face questions from the audience. Is it because they believe that their speakers are long on verbosity but short on knowledge? It certain looks that way.

Finally, how can conventions be made more relevant to the majority of TAAI members. Do what Willie Welinkar did in Kathmandu in 1987. He picked his subjects carefully. Handed them out to groups sitting at individual tables. Got the presenters of each group to address the full house with the consensus of their groups. Threw these views open to the house. Arrived at the general opinion of the house on each topic. And since all members attending the convention could not be accommodated in the groups, the others were free to wander from group to group and offer their views. Everyone felt that this was a really participatory convention. Willie, clearly had the will, but will the next president will otherwise or will the next convention go the same willy-nilly way that the last one did? Or is that too wily a question?