Clustering concept
At the recent Expo Event Industry in Sofia, I experienced déjà vu. The vigour and commitment that grace Teodora Jilkova as she continues to develop the Bulgarian Convention Bureau remind me of the energy surrounding the inception of the Slovenian Convention Bureau.
The idea of establishing the Slovenian Convention Bureau emerged in 1999. After four years of continued efforts, the convention bureau was established as an industry cluster in 2003. This was a time of blossoming clusters: more than 500 similar initiatives emerged worldwide. In Slovenia alone, 29 clusters emerged. The congress cluster was the third generation of clusters and aimed to connect 16 founding companies with a total of some 5,000 employees. The convention bureau began operating in 2005. The executive project manager was Brane Semolič, while the operative functions were led by Srečo Peterlič (Cankarjev dom) and Tatjana Juriševič (Kompas), with support from the Slovenian Tourist Board. I served as the project lead and co-authored strategic documents.
This article is not a nostalgic recollection; au contraire. The first strategy clearly stated that the founding members from 16 companies will collaborate in seven strategic areas: marketing, development, standards, quality services, event coordination, research, education, and IT services.
A brief review of the strategic documents indicates that the project was not merely a promotional effort but also systematically examined destination management. The clustering model and the measures we implemented helped us bridge the development gap we faced. Had we not adopted this model, the gap would have been bridged much later, if at all. Most importantly, the project did not conclude with the official end of the clustering phase; it continued to develop in practice.
A lack of trust among members
Two decades after the clustering stage, the time came for the fifth hard-headed revision. From the outset, it has become clear that the cluster’s main challenge is a lack of trust among members. This is unsurprising, though: the convention bureau includes companies that differ in size, success, strategies and business cultures. Moreover, members are often direct competitors in specific markets and segments.
That is one of the reasons trust is built not only through documents and formal arrangements, but predominantly through regular, open communication and informal meetings, where relationships are consolidated, and tensions are resolved in real time.
More important still are joint development projects that bring tangible benefits to all stakeholders. These projects turn partnerships and principles into experiences. One of the best examples of this real-world glue remains Conventa.
Vertical and horizontal connections
Here we reach the essence of clustering – vertical and horizontal. Vertical connections in the events industry link stakeholders across the value chain, including clients, event agencies, venues, hotels, logistics providers, technical suppliers, and other subcontractors.
Horizontal connections are formed among similar providers within the same segments (e.g., hotels, venues, and DMCs) that compete with one another. However, they can still cooperate in select areas, including standard-setting, market entry, knowledge exchange, product development, and building a destination’s recognition.
If vertical connections ensure execution efficacy and a higher quality of the entire offering, then horizontal connections create critical mass, a shared identity, and the conditions for a destination to appear connected and convincing in the market. The actual value of clustering lies in balancing the two types of connections.
It sounds simple in theory. In practice, however, this type of destination model requires a significant paradigm shift: from marketing and destination promotion to governance.
Marketing is, by far and large, attractive, dynamic and shiny on the outside. We associate it with travelling, attending trade shows, presenting services at events, and, truth be told, travel allowances allocated when travelling to exotic destinations. Moreover, KPIs in this field are often ill-defined, interpretations vary, and they can be easily embellished.
Destination management, by contrast, is a distinct model. This long-term, systematic, and often invisible process demands the coordination of interests, patience, internal discipline, and the capacity to make uncomfortable decisions. It is a marathon, not a sprint. Compared with marketing, it is less appealing, more analytical, and often introverted, which is why many prefer to avoid it. Yet, without it, long-term development is not possible.
The core finding is unequivocal: marketing and management are not two alternatives, but an inseparable couple.
The core finding is unequivocal: marketing and management are not two alternatives, but an inseparable couple. One without the other simply cannot work in this digital era. Without destination management, marketing is an empty promise, and without marketing, even the most exemplary destination management remains hidden.
Another dimension of this cluster discussion is intriguing. It appears that B2B marketing will primarily be optimised using AI. There are copious tools that optimise market analysis, targeting, content creation, and measurement of effects. The role of artificial intelligence tools will only grow.
For now, though, destination management is out of the grasp of AI. It still needs to learn to build trust, balance competing interests, manage long-term partnerships, and accept strategic compromises in complex situations. That remains a burden on humanity. That is another reason why quality destination management will become an even more important competitive factor in the future.
While this all seems logical, in reality, only a handful of destinations adopt this holistic view. Most, however, are focused on where to put their funds – among the 77 events industry events that are scheduled for 2026 (not to mention at least 15 new ones emerging). Decisions are thus less a result of meticulous, hairsplitting analysis or strategic priorities, and more a reflection of personal preferences, intuition, and trust in renowned brands. They should be based on data, long-term goals and actual impact on a destination’s development.
Put simply, the idea of a cluster conceived decades ago remains very much alive and surprisingly relevant.
Its concept is to move away from short-sighted, individual-interest-focused thinking and adopt a long-term view aligned with common goals and the development of the entire destination. In the vernacular of the events industry, the idea is to advance clustering.
This paradigm shift is not apparent. It requires open and regular communication among all stakeholders and their willingness to learn, coordinate, and compromise. This process is time-consuming and requires maturity and an understanding of shared responsibilities. As an organisation grows, so do the responsibilities of all members. Membership is not merely a formality, a membership fee or the feeling of being part of something. Being a member is a conscious pledge to co-create the future of the events industry and to take responsibility for improving a destination in the long run.
In practice, the most significant added value of clustering is observed at the intersection of vertical and horizontal connections. A typical example is Conventa that combines horizontal cooperation of providers within a destination, while also connecting the entire value chain of the events industry – from destination, venues, events organisers, to clients. Conventa is therefore far more than a promotional event; it is a development platform.
Projects such as Conventa demonstrate that clustering is not merely a theoretical concept but a practical tool for enhancing competitiveness, instilling trust, and developing the events industry over the long term.
About the clustering theory
The clustering theory, developed by Michael Porter, defines a business cluster as a network of companies and institutions that compete and cooperate simultaneously. Their key development power stems from vertical and horizontal connections.
Vertical connections are established across the value chain and link all stakeholders involved in organising an event, from clients and event organisers to venues, hotels, and technical and logistical subcontractors. In the events industry, these connections are reflected in shared offerings by destination organisations, PCOs, conference centres, and hotels; the emergence of new event formats; and coordinated transport and logistical solutions. The results of these connections are effective execution, high-quality services and enhanced attendee experiences.
Horizontal connections are formed among similar or competing providers within the same segments, such as hotels, conference centres, event venues, or PCOs. Although these stakeholders are competitors in the market, they cooperate in areas that yield mutual benefits: developing standards, entering the market as a single entity, exchanging knowledge, or building recognition for a destination. By doing so, they create critical mass without which a destination cannot appear convincing internationally.
Author: Gorazd Čad
