
“Ten years ago, when we started preparing the congress travelogues, we couldn’t possibly have foreseen that our methodology for evaluating destinations would have become such an important reference point for meeting planners. As of today, we have published 76 travelogues of various meeting destinations, all based on hard graft and solid field work. Our unflagging enthusiasm for this has demonstrated that we have been setting quality standards that are also being recognized by the wider international industry public through the Meetings Star Awards.”
– Gorazd Čad, Editor in Chief
Congress travelogues, or Meetologues, have become a firm reference for event organisers in selecting destinations over the past decade, mainly because of their sound logic and the benefits that they bring to all parties.
On the initiative of individual destinations that have participated in the MTLG project, we have now prepared a new categorization of meeting destinations. The primary reason we have done this is to ensure the clarity and comprehensibility of the individual categories; the new categorization involves a combination of criteria and the basis for the classification of destinations into four classes is based on the full range of the index and total scores that fall within it.
The results of this new categorization are presented in detail below. It highlighted that, depending on the supporting capacity, destinations can be divided into four categories that are framed based on the maximum number of participants that can be accommodated without encountering any major logistical turmoil or complications.
L MEETING DESTINATIONS
Destinations that can host up to 2,000 congress attendees
Congress infrastructure (hall capacity) and flight availability on destinations listed here enables the hosting of a congress for up to 2,000 attendees. In the field of congress infrastructure some especially great progress has been made by a number of the destinations, such as Poland and the Baltic countries, where a number of brand new congress centres can be found today. Among the destinations there are also those where the infrastructure is in place, but is in need of extensive renovation, or those that are still waiting for a proper and dedicated convention centre to be built, such as Sarajevo or Zagreb. For this category flight availability is an extremely important criterion and is where major differences and significant competitive advantages can be made.

VENICE, Italy
MTLG INDEX: 479

KRAKOW, Poland
MTLG INDEX: 475

GRAZ, Austria
MTLG INDEX: 452

GDANSK, Poland
MTLG INDEX: 446

SALZBURG, Austria
MTLG INDEX: 438

ZAGREB, Croatia
MTLG INDEX: 437

VILNIUS, Lithuania
MTLG INDEX: 435

TALLIN, Estonia
MTLG INDEX: 417

SARAJEVO, Bosnia
MTLG INDEX: 413

BRNO, Czech Republic
MTLG INDEX: 413

KATOWICE, Poland
MTLG INDEX: 404
THESSALONIKI, Greece
MTLG INDEX: 392
BRATISLAVA, Slovakia
MTLG INDEX: 385

LJUBLJANA, Slovenia
MTLG INDEX: 382
INNSBRUCK, Austria
MTLG INDEX: 374

GRANADA, Spain
MTLG INDEX: 370

NOVI SAD, Serbia
MTLG INDEX: 367
MTLG 2017 CATEGORIZATION
The complexity of the meetings industry means there are many possible variables that can contribute to defining the ‘size’ of a destination. We have been looking for those that are frequently considered to be closely connected and interdependent. This aspect of the defining criteria process necessitated a review of existing literature, which is quite limited in that field and is heavily reliant on the statistics prepared by the international association ICCA, which focuses on recording the number of association meetings and their participants at a destination. Our pillar capacity of meeting estinations were calculated based on criteria that were defined with the help of leading experts from various destinations and are as follows:
MTLG BENCHMARK
The entire methodology of our work had already been upgraded previous year with a system of benchmarking that is carried out for each individual congress destinations, under the name MTLG BENCHMARK.
With our complete methodology we have saved you a lot of your valuable time that would otherwise have been spent in comparing yourself with your main competitors.
Our process is conducted at two different levels:
1. DESTINATION EVALUATION (following the congress MTLG’s methodology)
At this stage destinations are evaluated on all the criteria that are covered in our methodology, including 63 competitive criteria. Based on the destination evaluation a comparative matrix is prepared, which is the basis for the workshop performance of the second stage.
2. BENCHMARK WORKSHOP (with key stakeholders at the destination)
The workshop is designed to evaluate the competitive strengths and weaknesses of a destination and provide the exchange of good case studies in regard to its the further development.
We are confident that our objective evaluation will help event organisers and at the same time allow destinations to implement the further improvements required to overcome their comparative disadvantages.