1

MSACL2018EUPost-ConExhibitorReportPrepared by Amber Herold September 26, 2018 This document contains:

1. Discussion of topics covered on-site at the Exhibitor Feedback Discussion Group

2. Statistics on Attendee Demographics and year over year growth 3. Key Attendee Feedback

I encourage you to respond with your feedback. If you liked something, let us know. We need to evaluate the effectiveness of several changes to the program this year including:

1. Addition of the State of the Science Address. 2. Format of Discussion Panel for SWOT Future of Clinical Mass Spec. 3. Addition of Single Day registration type. 4. Addition of Clinical Use Status designation to posters and talks (the

colored donuts in green, yellow and orange). 5. Effectiveness of Meet-the-Experts Booth Tours in the Exhibit Hall. 6. Continuation of Vendor Lightning Talks.

Your feedback is an important tool for shaping the next event. Remember, a success for any one of us is a success for all of us if it raises awareness of Mass Spec as applied to Clinical Labs, especially if it improves patient outcomes. We are all partners in our collective success. Link to Photos: https://photos.app.goo.gl/qNiF1abWsM8AxkbN8

TopicsofDiscussion

FinancialViabilityofMSACLEUIt is important to note that this year we have noticed a reduction in participation from vendors and industry in general. Fewer booths sold (down to 17 from 20 in 2017), there were no Platinum sponsors, Travel Grant sponsorship was down, and fewer Workshops were purchased. Additionally, registrations from Industry decreased 11% (i.e., from 213 in 2017 to 189) despite Academic and Government registrations increasing 36% (i.e., from 203 in 2017 to 277). While the increase in Acad/Govt attendees is welcome, registration income from this group is negligible. For continued viability of this event, we will likely need to restructure our spending in several areas.

2

1. Reduce Travel Grant spending (96 travel grantees this year). For the future we expect to be unable to sponsor hotel fees, and are strongly considering limitation of grants to first and perhaps second-time attendees. Grants will only cover registration fees in most instances.

2. Reduce or eliminate short courses taught by non-Europeans. The travel expenses have double or tripled from prior years for trans-Atlantic flights. This could affect participation of Russ Grant, Brian Rappold, Dan Holmes, William Slade (or Steve Masters), Patrick Mathias, Judy Stone, Grace van der Gugten, Will Thompson, Erik Soderblom, Cory Bystrom and Chris Shuford. There are currently four short courses led by Europeans are expected to remain, Metabolomics 202, LC-MSMS 101 (to be led by Laura Owen and Michael Wright), Proteomic Microbiology 201 and Lab Medicine.

3. Reduce or eliminate travel funding for Keynote Speakers. We had eight this year including Harald Mischak, Ronda Greaves, Mario Thevis, Liam McDonnell, Edward Moore, Gordon Lauc, David Millington, and Raf Van De Plas.

DateofFutureMeetingsSeptember was a very busy month for conferences in Europe this year, and many people said they could not make it this year due to conflicts. We are planning to make MSACL EU a bi-annual congress held in odd years beginning with September 22-26, 2019. Provided the 2019 meeting is successful, future meetings will be held in 2021, 2023, 2025, etc.. We are exploring the option to move future meetings to the first week of July in Salzburg. This is not a busy time for meetings in Europe, however, it would land about a month after ASMS and 3 weeks before AACC, which could affect attendance.

OtherTopicsFollowing on feedback from the Exhibitor meeting, we are exploring the idea of offering floating full conference badges that could be purchased with a booth ($1000 each, up to two), but that would not be valid for presenting an abstract. There was also discussion on an alternative location for MSACL US in Canada, Toronto, Montreal and Quebec were all suggested. Montreal seems that most attracive and practical.

MSACL2018EUStatisticsandDemographicsPlease find Demographic information including Affiliation, Country, and Registration Type online at: https://www.msacl.org/program/view_registrants_include.php Trend graphs can be found here: https://www.msacl.org/program/view_registrants_trends_include.php

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 Attendees On-Site

466 (+10.6%)

421 (-3.4%)

436 (+12%)

389 (+12%) 349

3

Exhibits-Only Attendees

72 (-23%)

93 (-6%)

99 (+32%)

75 (+14%) 66

Non-Exhibitor Attendees

341 (+35%)

73% of all

253 (-12%)

59% of all

287 (+13%)

64% of all

254 (+16%)

63% of all 219

61% of all

First-time non-Exhibitor Attendees

188 (+17%)

40% of all 55% of non-

Exhibitor

161 (-15%)

37% of all 64% of non-

Exhibitor

189 (-10%)

42% of all 66% of non-

Exhibitor

210 (-4%)

52% of all 83% of non-

Exhibitor

219

Returning non-Exhibitor Attendees

153 (+59%)

33% of all 45% of non-

Exhibitor

96 (-1%)

22% of all 38% of non-

Exhibitor

97 (+131%)

22% of all 34% of non-

Exhibitor

42 10% of all

17% of non- Exhibitor

0

Lab Director Grantees

4 1% of all

8 2% of all

13 3% of all

11 3% of all 0

Young Investigator Grantees

77 16% of all

45 10% of all

43 10% of all

41 11% of all

29 8% of all

Trainee Grantees

15 3% of all

8 2% of all

8 2% of all

9 2% of all

10 3% of all

Acad/Govt 142 30% of all

120 28% of all

129 30% of all

100 26% of all

91 28% of all

Students 39 8% of all

22 5% of all

25 6% of all

21 5% of all

18 5% of all

Industry 189 40% of all

213 49% of all

206 47% of all

189 49% of all

178 53% of all

Posters 126 107 117 112 126 Podium presentations 77 65 58 65 41

Exhibitors 17 (25 booths)

20 (28 booths)

21 (28 booths)

20 (24 booths)

22 (29 booths)

4

MSACL2018EUCountriesofOrigin* For the years 2014-2017 attendees affiliated with Exhibitors are not included.

Country 2018 2017* 2016* 2015* 2014* Argentina 0 0 0 0 1 Australia 4 3 4 2 0 Austria 21 14 9 16 4 Bahrain 0 0 0 1 0 Belgium 8 8 4 8 7

Brazil 2 0 1 2 2 Canada 5 12 10 6 9 China 0 2 1 1 3

Croatia 10 10 5 6 2 Czech Republic 8 5 4 2 0

Denmark 14 7 7 2 9 Estonia 1 0 0 0 0 Egypt 0 1 0 0 2

Ethiopia 0 0 0 1 0 Finland 11 4 2 0 0 France 22 9 11 9 5

Germany 80 35 34 19 38 Greece 1 0 0 0 0

Hong Kong 1 0 2 0 0 Hungary 8 1 0 1 1 Iceland 5 5 5 2 0 India 2 1 3 1 1

Ireland 2 0 1 4 2 Israel 0 0 0 0 2 Italy 29 21 19 8 4

Japan 7 6 7 2 2 Korea, Republic of 9 7 6 11 7

Latvia 0 0 0 1 0 Lithuania 0 0 0 1 0

Luxembourg 1 1 1 3 2 Malaysia 0 0 1 0 0 Mexico 0 1 0 0 0

Netherlands 37 16 28 24 18 New Zealand 1 3 0 1 1

Norway 5 7 4 6 5 Poland 5 3 4 2 0

5

Qatar 1 1 0 0 0 Romania 0 0 1 1 0

Russian Federation 13 4 10 4 1 Serbia 0 1 0 0 0

Singapore 4 0 0 0 0 Slovenia 0 1 0 1 0

South Africa 0 1 0 0 0 Spain 1 3 1 4 3

Sweden 19 5 9 5 6 Switzerland 23 14 13 20 6

Taiwan 1 0 6 3 0 Thailand 1 0 0 0 0 Turkey 8 0 1 2 0

United Arab Emirates

0 0 1 0 0

United Kingdom 53 29 29 29 29 United States 45 16 25 23 29

6

CorporateWorkshopAttendance*Note – numbers are approximate as recorded by MSACL staff Some vendors expressed interest in learning what types of workshops tend to attract more attendees. We have shared our recorded room counts with all vendors, as well as the following points:

1. A workshop led by unaffiliated users of the vendor’s products, giving a talk on their own science, tends to be better attended.

2. Top-quality, well-known speakers, even if their talk is not related to the vendor’s product in any way, will almost always draw a crowd.

3. Having a reputation for giving high quality swag helps. 4. Listing a clear topic with broad appeal helps.

7

KeyAttendeeFeedbackSelected feedback results with 40% of attendees responding thus far are represented below. You can view all responses and comments here: https://www.msacl.org/questionnaire_responses_conference_PUBLIC.php I appreciated the Vendor Lightning Talks.

Average: 2.02

0=Not at All (n=10) 1=Somewhat (n=25) 2=Mostly (n=45) 3=Definitely (n=47)

Responses: 127 Declared Not Applicable: 41

I found the congress to be beneficial for networking.

Average: 2.76

0=Not at All (n=0) 1=Somewhat (n=6) 2=Mostly (n=29) 3=Definitely (n=136)

Responses: 171 Declared Not Applicable: 2

I would prefer if MSACL EU took place every OTHER year.

Average: 1.36

0=Not at All (n=55) 1=Somewhat (n=23) 2=Mostly (n=19) 3=Definitely (n=43)

Responses: 140 Declared Not Applicable: 24

8

Declared Not Applicable: 23

This meeting competes with other meetings for my interest. --> Please list other meetings you enjoy attending in the Comments section.

Average: 1.04

0=Not at All (n=48) 1=Somewhat (n=29) 2=Mostly (n=18) 3=Definitely (n=17)

Responses: 112 Declared Not Applicable: 57

I enjoyed my time at the congress.

Average: 2.82

0=Not at All (n=0) 1=Somewhat (n=1) 2=Mostly (n=32) 3=Definitely (n=153)

Responses: 186 Declared Not Applicable:

I valued the opportunity to chat with Vendors in the Exhibit Hall.

Average: 2.69

0=Not at All (n=1) 1=Somewhat (n=5) 2=Mostly (n=32) 3=Definitely (n=107)

Responses: 145 Declared Not Applicable: 21

I attended a Corporate Workshop and found it worthwhile.

9

Average: 2.21

0=Not at All (n=5) 1=Somewhat (n=12) 2=Mostly (n=46) 3=Definitely (n=44)

Responses: 107 Declared Not Applicable: 56

I think it is critical that MSACL retain a presence in Europe to further the adoption of mass spectrometry in the clinic.

Average: 2.78

0=Not at All (n=2) 1=Somewhat (n=6) 2=Mostly (n=17) 3=Definitely (n=133)

Responses: 158 Declared Not Applicable: 7

END OF DOCUMENT