Every supplier serving the MICE sector—from convention bureaus to hotel groups and destination management companies—wants a larger share of the pie. That ambition is universal. What is less common is a coherent plan to achieve it. The industry's default posture is to fight over existing demand rather than create new demand, and that is precisely where the problem lies.
The fundamental barrier to growth is not a lack of effort or even a lack of budget. It is a failure to distinguish between the competition we can see and the competition we cannot. In city after city, from Singapore to Hong Kong, from Las Vegas to Barcelona, suppliers obsess over the same familiar names: Marina Bay Sands versus Resorts World Sentosa, Hilton versus Hyatt, one convention centre versus another. This is the known competition, and it consumes most of the industry's strategic energy.
But the known competition is not where the real threat—or the real opportunity—lies. The true competitors to the MICE industry are the alternative ways a corporation or association can spend its marketing, communication, education, or promotion budget. A product launch, a digital advertising campaign, a series of webinars, or a bespoke training programme can all deliver the outcomes that a meeting or incentive trip might otherwise provide. These are the unknown competitors, and they are far more numerous and often more persuasive than any rival destination or hotel brand.
Consider the decision a pharmaceutical company makes when planning its annual sales conference. It could choose Singapore over Hong Kong, or the Grand Hyatt over the Shangri-La. But it could also choose to invest that same budget in a virtual reality product demonstration, a targeted social media campaign, or a series of regional roadshows. The MICE industry rarely positions itself against these alternatives. Instead, it competes internally, hoping to capture a share of a budget that may be shrinking or shifting elsewhere.
The result is a zero-sum game. When Singapore wins a bid, Hong Kong loses. When Hilton secures a corporate group, Hyatt misses out. The total volume of MICE activity remains static, and suppliers fight over the same slices. As Indonesia ramps up its MICE infrastructure and other Southeast Asian destinations invest heavily, the intra-regional rivalry will only intensify. But that competition, however fierce, does little to expand the overall market.
To achieve genuine growth, the industry must enlarge the pie. That requires a collective effort to convince corporate buyers and association planners that face-to-face meetings, incentive travel, and exhibitions deliver measurable returns that digital alternatives cannot match. It means positioning MICE not as a cost centre but as a strategic investment in human capital, brand building, and stakeholder engagement.
Why the industry avoids the real fight
Focusing on known competitors is comfortable. It is easier to benchmark against a rival hotel or a competing convention bureau than to articulate why a live event outperforms a digital campaign. It is also easier to justify a sales pitch that compares room rates or square metres of exhibition space than to quantify the long-term value of a face-to-face interaction. But this comfort comes at a price: it limits growth to the redistribution of existing demand.
The unknown competition is more challenging because it requires a different kind of thinking. It demands that MICE suppliers understand the broader objectives of their clients—not just the logistics of an event, but the business outcomes they seek. It also requires collaboration among suppliers who are normally rivals. A destination, a hotel, and an event agency must work together to make the case for MICE against, say, a corporate e-learning platform or a product launch event.
There are signs that some players are beginning to grasp this. The recent push by destinations like Abu Dhabi to ease visa requirements for Indian travellers is partly aimed at attracting more business events, but it also reflects a broader effort to compete for discretionary corporate budgets. Similarly, the rise of hybrid events has forced the industry to reconsider its value proposition. Yet these efforts remain fragmented.
The opportunity is substantial. According to industry estimates, the global MICE market is worth hundreds of billions of dollars, but it represents only a fraction of total corporate spending on marketing and communication. If the industry could capture even a small percentage of that larger pool, the growth would be transformative. But that will not happen by accident. It requires a deliberate strategy, developed collectively, to position MICE as the superior choice for achieving business objectives.
As competition from non-industry sources intensifies—whether from online travel agencies or from broader digital marketing trends—the urgency grows. The MICE sector cannot afford to remain inward-looking. It must engage with the unknown competition head-on, armed with data, case studies, and a clear message about the unique value of live, interactive business events.
The path forward is not easy. It will require investment in research, advocacy, and education. It will also require a shift in mindset from individual suppliers to a collective industry voice. But the alternative—continuing to fight over the same slices of a static pie—is a recipe for stagnation. The MICE industry has a choice: to keep competing with itself, or to take on the real rivals that threaten its future.
