What the recently released MPI Q2 2026 Meetings Outlook reveals about the pros and cons of planning meetings and events in today’s environment.

The latest Meetings Outlook survey from Meeting Professionals International (MPI) tells us what most planners already know because they’re living it. Namely, that as we head into the second half of 2026, event professionals are being asked to do more with less, and the gap between what’s expected and what’s resourced keeps widening.

After a brief positive bump in Q1, overall business confidence has retreated. Just 47% of respondents describe conditions as favorable — down from 57% last quarter — while negative expectations climbed from 25% to 34%. For many, this echoes the cautious mood of late 2025, a period defined by cost-awareness and muted growth bets.

Attendance projections are the sharper warning sign. Only 47% of planners expect positive live attendance (down from 60% in Q1), while 33% anticipate declines and another 20% expect flat turnout. That means the majority are planning for attendance that either shrinks or stays put — a reality with cascading effects on room blocks, F&B minimums, staffing models and sponsor packages.

This aligns with findings from the Global Business Travel Association, which reported in April 2026 that 38% of meeting buyers are now less likely to host multinational events in the U.S. compared to just six months ago, and that 56% of organizations have already changed their meetings strategy through cancellations, virtual shifts or reduced attendance.

Budgets Look Better on Paper

There’s a sliver of good news: budget projections are the most favorable they’ve been in over a year, with 55% of respondents citing favorable expectations. But here’s the catch: “Favorable” doesn’t mean comfortable. When every vendor line item has absorbed multiple rounds of price increases, a technically healthy budget can still leave planners underwater.

This is echoed in broader industry data. While one industry study found 66% of meeting professionals expecting budget increases, other analysts project overall cost increases of just 2–4% in 2026, roughly in line with inflation. Cost per attendee per day is actually expected to dip slightly — down about 1.3% to $172, according to an industry Annual Global Business Travel Forecast — offering some relief for planners who know where to look (secondary cities, for instance, remain an underutilized resource).

Still, the day-to-day experience on the ground feels more constrained than the numbers suggest. As one survey respondent, Corrine Thompson-Melissari of the National Alliance on Mental Illness, put it, consistent price increases have made budgeting “a constant problem,” leading her to consolidate vendors and find creative efficiencies wherever possible.

Experience Over Everything

With attendance harder to guarantee, the events that do happen need to help attendees justify the trip. The report notes a clear shift in attendee expectations — from “make it engaging” to “make it worth it.” Younger participants in particular are raising the bar, expecting wellness options, intentional networking and meaningful personalization as baseline offerings, not add-ons.

This puts the focus squarely on outcomes. As Michael Farrell of Van Wagner noted in his survey comments, it’s no longer enough to produce a well-run event. Planners must now demonstrate what actually changed because of it. Freeman’s research reinforces a hopeful counterpoint: Attendee sentiment is running significantly higher than planner sentiment, suggesting that the people showing up still see real value in the in-person experience, even if the planners producing it feel the pressure more acutely.

Measuring Human Impact Is Now Mainstream

One of the report’s most striking findings is the industry’s embrace of human impact measurement: 76% of respondents say it’s extremely or very important, and 58% report having a formal framework in place. Post-event surveys remain the dominant method (80%), though behavioral data, social sentiment and community feedback are underutilized relative to their potential.

The biggest barriers? Difficulty quantifying intangibles (56%), low survey response rates (47%), and a lack of clear definitions of what “human impact” even means (42%). With 52% measuring impact only immediately post-event, there’s a clear near-term opportunity: Lightweight follow-up touchpoints — a 60- or 90-day pulse check — could capture the sustained outcomes that stakeholders care most about.

The fundamentals of in-person events remain strong. Attendance sentiment among participants is higher than planners realize, and the long-term global events market continues to project steady growth. But in the current environment, the planners who will thrive are those who ruthlessly protect the moments that make in-person irreplaceable — connection, energy, community — while cutting the noise that doesn’t move the needle. That means tighter strategy, smarter measurement and a clear answer to the question every stakeholder is now asking: What changed because we held this event?

Image by creativeart on Magnific