07/24/2023    George A. Cioe

Podiatry Meetings..."We Cannot Direct the Wind But We can Adjust the Sails."

In short, we support professional meetings because
we hope to talk with doctors in person, face to
face, in an environment that facilitates a
conversation about their practice and our company.
It’s that simple.

Talking with a doctor and his staff at a meeting
without patients waiting in treatment rooms,
office schedule time constraints, the urgent care
needs of post-surgical cases, or patients with
acute onset symptoms or injuries, is what makes
exhibiting at a conference worth every penny.
Sometimes we open a new account, ship products to
the doctor for an in-office trial, sell products to
existing customers that receive special conference
pricing, or simply make “lunch and learn”
appointments as a follow-up to continue the
discussion or train staff.

These are all great outcomes, and it was the norm
for many years. Then Covid-19 happened and now,
unfortunately, this is the exception. We currently
attend conferences and see only one-tenth of the
doctors on the registration list. We can spend
hours between conversations with doctors and staff.

Conferences today are remnants of what they used to
be just 10 years ago. Attendance is down at every
meeting, and it is affecting our interest in
attending and providing support. This is not easy
to say! Tetra has been an enthusiastic supporter
of podiatric meetings for 17 years. Our conference
participation hit an all-time high of 118 meetings
in 2013! I can remember weeks when we sponsored and
attended five meetings simultaneously!

As time has passed, the winds of change have eroded
interest and inspired new forums that compete with
the in-person conference format. Today, the avenues
for CME credits include online courses, virtual
meetings, and hybrid (virtual/in-person)
conferences. Additionally, the sheer number of
meetings each year affects attendance because they
spread a finite number of doctors very thinly.
There aren’t enough doctors to fill them all.

I just attended the APMA National meeting in
Nashville, TN and very few of the Tennessee doctors
were there because they plan to attend their state
meeting in September. Meetings are competing for
attendance. And the hybrid meeting format has made
a marginal meeting even worse. Unfortunately, all
of this has resulted in an incredibly low return on
the resources invested by exhibitors. Companies,
including Tetra, subsidize these meetings by paying
exhibitor and sponsorship fees. They also pay for
company personnel flights, hotels, and meals to
attend meetings in person.

I was compelled to write this letter because many
of The Western and The National exhibitors urged me
to start a discussion. When we invest and attend a
meeting in person, I do not think it is
unreasonable to expect doctors to be present in
person too. Talking with doctors and office staff
on the telephone, the original virtual experience,
happens every day. Tetra is proud to have real
people answering the phones when doctors or staff
call, and the company personnel have the authority
for one-call resolution – no recordings or digital
menus.

I hope that the leaders of podiatric medicine will
regroup and get meetings back on track. There are
still too many meetings. I realize that some are
profit centers. But without exhibitors, costs for
attendance will increase significantly. There
needs to be a new paradigm of collaboration where
the eleven schools, state associations, podiatric
specialties, and the APMA work together to hold
fewer and larger meetings in each region. Meetings
where doctors can reconnect with classmates, meet
new colleagues from different states and diverse
practices, hear dynamic speakers who have broad
appeal, listen to thought leaders who challenge the
status quo, and most of all, attract the young
doctors craving a stage for education, opportunity,
and practical learning about practice management. I
believe exhibitors would welcome and support such a
plan with enthusiasm! Tetra, for one, could
significantly increase sponsorship if there were
fewer meetings. This plan would provide a larger
meeting income stream for multiple event
organizers.

I think the time has come to hold 7 to 11 meetings
a year; with the schools, state associations,
specialty groups, and the APMA sharing
responsibility and revenue. To continue on the
current trajectory is a non-starter for many of the
exhibitors that have supported the profession and
conferences for years. Moving forward, Tetra will
not exhibit in meetings where doctors can attend
virtually – it simply does not make sense
financially!

There is an old adage: We Cannot Direct the Wind,
But We Can Adjust the Sails.
Let’s work together so that this makes sense for
everyone: the doctors, the professional
associations, and the companies that provide
sponsorship!

I look forward to further discussion and a sensible
solution!

George A. Cioe, President and CEO, The Tetra
Corporation

Other messages in this thread:

---

07/26/2023    Allen Jacobs, DPM

Podiatry Meetings..."We Cannot Direct the Wind But We Can Adjust the Sails." (George A. Cioe)

The recent commentary regarding the state of post-
graduate education for CME is noted. His
participation in seminar programs and his products
for the betterment of patient health are
appreciated. Like Mr. Cioe, I miss the days of the
large scientific gatherings such as the great
Hershey seminars, the old Connecticut state
meetings, and do enjoy the few remaining similar
programs such as the NYSPMS annual meeting.

Peter, Paul, and Mary popularized the Bob Dylan
song “The times they are a changin“. So too has
podiatry post-graduate education. CHEC is first and
foremost to serve the doctor, not the exhibitor. My
own seminar, the St. Louis Podiatry Seminar, has
increased in registration every year since going
virtual as part of the hybrid presentation model.

It is the responsibility of the industry to
determine how to best market podiatrists in the
environment of virtual education. Not only are
travel costs eliminated with virtual education,
many programs are available “on demand“, allowing
the registrant maximum freedom to determine when
appropriate time is available.

Hybrid meetings, such as a St. Louis Podiatry
Seminar illustrates the popularity of virtual
meetings. Last year we had 55 individuals
registered live at the hotel, and over 300
registered virtually. It is industry that will have
to adjust to the demands and needs of the podiatric
audience and the reverse.

There is also a reality to be dealt with. Every
year there are over 300 podiatry meetings
conducted. These range from local society dinner
lectures to national meetings. It seems as though
every state, region, special interest groups, and
corporations, maintain and conduct at least one if
not more CME opportunities per year. That is a
reality. There are also a member of meetings that
are held by independent groups that are very well
attended. I do not see any groups voluntarily
relinquishing their programs in favor of reducing
the number of CECH programs voluntarily. it will
not happen.

One reason many of the seminars are poorly attended
in my opinion, is the lack of producing a
compelling program content. Many of the educational
offerings feature the same speakers with
essentially the same topics year after year after
year. I can only listen to so many lectures on
onychomycosis or on surgical procedures seldom
performed by the majority of every day pediatric
physicians.

Another factor is the realization that many of
these programs are sponsored by corporations, or
contain multiple speakers that are paid for by
corporations. I do not want to pay for a program
where I’m being subtly encouraged to utilize a
particular product or service. This may work the
first one or two times, but eventually people catch
on and are not going to pay for what is essentially
a commercial disguised as a lecture. There has been
too much of this.

Destination meetings, probably have the best chance
of continuing to be successful. Registrants in
reality, sign in, may attend some of the lectures,
but generally have brought family, golf clubs, cash
for gambling, or whatever to enjoy the destination,
and really are not there for the majority of the
lectures. Attendance is much easier to verify
virtually than it is live because there’s really no
enforcement with true verification of attendance at
live meetings.

I can summarize all of this with the following
story. Many years ago when I was beginning my
career in this profession, I was lecturing at a
very major meeting here in the United States. I was
the last lecture of the day. When I arrived, the
room was pretty much empty. As the lecture
preceding, Mi was reaching its conclusion, the room
began to fill. as I began my lecture, the room
filmed up more and more, and was standing room
only. I was thinking to myself what an important
lecture I must be. The room had been empty for most
of that afternoon and now here were people standing
in the halls filling every seat.

I was thinking how much I could not wait to tell my
wife how popular I was. When I concluded my
lecture, the doors to the lecture room opened, and
people were being scanned as they exited the room.
At this particular meeting at that particular time,
you could only obtain your continuing hours of
educational credit on exiting the room at the
completion of the day’s lectures. It did make me
laugh, however when I realized I was not quite the
attraction I thought I was. But I think it does
summarize the current state of continuing medical
education.

Allen Jacobs, DPM, St. Louis, MO