www.researchgate.net
Open in
urlscan Pro
104.17.33.105
Public Scan
URL:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340061036_2020_Events_Industry_Survey_Report_Risk_Readiness_Resilience
Submission: On March 15 via manual from US — Scanned from US
Submission: On March 15 via manual from US — Scanned from US
Form analysis 3 forms found in the DOM
GET search
<form method="GET" action="search" class="lite-page__header-search-input-wrapper"><input type="hidden" name="context" readonly="" value="publicSearchHeader"><input placeholder="Search for publications, researchers, or questions" name="q"
autocomplete="off" class="lite-page__header-search-input"><button
class="nova-legacy-c-button nova-legacy-c-button--align-center nova-legacy-c-button--radius-full nova-legacy-c-button--size-s nova-legacy-c-button--color-white nova-legacy-c-button--theme-ghost nova-legacy-c-button--width-square lite-page__header-search-button"
type="submit" width="square"><span class="nova-legacy-c-button__label"><svg aria-hidden="true"
class="nova-legacy-e-icon nova-legacy-e-icon--size-s nova-legacy-e-icon--theme-bare nova-legacy-e-icon--color-inherit nova-legacy-e-icon--luminosity-medium">
<use xlink:href="/m/492447114586776/images/icons/nova/icon-stack-s.svg#magnifier-s"></use>
</svg></span></button></form>Name: loginForm — POST https://www.researchgate.net/login?_sg=TPUmIOUVlftlblJvq0cPvNLyR91SayH0i4FFfCKSTUyqpyOpJwWKjksBKvqAEwyF74zUmAPEUL_vVA
<form method="post" action="https://www.researchgate.net/login?_sg=TPUmIOUVlftlblJvq0cPvNLyR91SayH0i4FFfCKSTUyqpyOpJwWKjksBKvqAEwyF74zUmAPEUL_vVA" name="loginForm" id="headerLoginForm"><input type="hidden" name="request_token"
value="aad-EIcLhznPYeeLapWVd0ys/HEM2Vfe/SuIpdzFsTYXiz+oVHP6dtE4bzOiNgaRgskW/FGZuphV78UQHf+Ws6VNsAeVYK3BpNoSupt0TyiiL4My7uDXHBNheolODqSQNQgTVw+UF38E+JZxJMjXxfgwciZdXmpg/FjVJDyMmxJyaFmVUI01zajmDTMvTNBH8HNVF626hcZG/GP2er0Pg+ioaY2///2N1BQefvk303dXffkq51tEnuAVTafN5hOZ8N533KAv7ZcyZTPJa9ea/FM="><input
type="hidden" name="urlAfterLogin" value="publication/340061036_2020_Events_Industry_Survey_Report_Risk_Readiness_Resilience"><input type="hidden" name="invalidPasswordCount" value="0"><input type="hidden" name="headerLogin" value="yes">
<div class="lite-page__header-login-item"><label class="nova-legacy-e-text nova-legacy-e-text--size-m nova-legacy-e-text--family-sans-serif nova-legacy-e-text--spacing-none nova-legacy-e-text--color-inherit lite-page__header-login-label"
for="input-header-login">Email <div class="lite-page-tooltip "><svg aria-hidden="true" class="nova-legacy-e-icon nova-legacy-e-icon--size-s nova-legacy-e-icon--theme-bare nova-legacy-e-icon--color-inherit nova-legacy-e-icon--luminosity-medium">
<use xlink:href="/m/492447114586776/images/icons/nova/icon-stack-s.svg#info-circle-s"></use>
</svg>
<div class="lite-page-tooltip__content lite-page-tooltip__content--above">
<div class="nova-legacy-e-text nova-legacy-e-text--size-s nova-legacy-e-text--family-sans-serif nova-legacy-e-text--spacing-none nova-legacy-e-text--color-inherit"><b>Tip:</b> Most researchers use their institutional email address as their
ResearchGate login</div>
<div class="lite-page-tooltip__arrow lite-page-tooltip__arrow--above">
<div class="lite-page-tooltip__arrow-tip"></div>
</div>
</div>
</div></label></div><input type="email" required="" placeholder="" id="input-header-login" name="login" autocomplete="email" tabindex="1"
class="nova-legacy-e-input__field nova-legacy-e-input__field--size-m lite-page__header-login-item nova-legacy-e-input__ambient nova-legacy-e-input__ambient--theme-default">
<div class="lite-page__header-login-item"><label class="lite-page__header-login-label"
for="input-header-password">Password</label><a class="nova-legacy-e-link nova-legacy-e-link--color-blue nova-legacy-e-link--theme-bare lite-page__header-login-forgot" href="application.LostPassword.html">Forgot password?</a></div><input
type="password" required="" placeholder="" id="input-header-password" name="password" autocomplete="current-password" tabindex="2"
class="nova-legacy-e-input__field nova-legacy-e-input__field--size-m lite-page__header-login-item nova-legacy-e-input__ambient nova-legacy-e-input__ambient--theme-default"><label
class="nova-legacy-e-checkbox lite-page__header-login-checkbox"><input type="checkbox" class="nova-legacy-e-checkbox__input" aria-invalid="false" name="setLoginCookie" tabindex="3" value="yes" checked=""><span
class="nova-legacy-e-checkbox__checkmark"></span><span class="nova-legacy-e-checkbox__label"> Keep me logged in</span></label>
<div
class="nova-legacy-l-flex__item nova-legacy-l-flex nova-legacy-l-flex--gutter-m nova-legacy-l-flex--direction-column@s-up nova-legacy-l-flex--align-items-stretch@s-up nova-legacy-l-flex--justify-content-center@s-up nova-legacy-l-flex--wrap-nowrap@s-up">
<div class="nova-legacy-l-flex__item"><button
class="nova-legacy-c-button nova-legacy-c-button--align-center nova-legacy-c-button--radius-m nova-legacy-c-button--size-m nova-legacy-c-button--color-blue nova-legacy-c-button--theme-solid nova-legacy-c-button--width-full" type="submit"
width="full" tabindex="4"><span class="nova-legacy-c-button__label">Log in</span></button></div>
<div class="nova-legacy-l-flex__item nova-legacy-l-flex__item--align-self-center@s-up">
<div class="nova-legacy-e-text nova-legacy-e-text--size-s nova-legacy-e-text--family-sans-serif nova-legacy-e-text--spacing-none nova-legacy-e-text--color-inherit">or</div>
</div>
<div class="nova-legacy-l-flex__item">
<div
class="nova-legacy-l-flex__item nova-legacy-l-flex nova-legacy-l-flex--gutter-m nova-legacy-l-flex--direction-column@s-up nova-legacy-l-flex--align-items-center@s-up nova-legacy-l-flex--justify-content-flex-start@s-up nova-legacy-l-flex--wrap-nowrap@s-up">
<div class="nova-legacy-l-flex__item">
<a href="connector/google"><div style="display:inline-block;width:247px;height:40px;text-align:left;border-radius:2px;white-space:nowrap;color:#444;background:#4285F4"><span style="margin:1px 0 0 1px;display:inline-block;vertical-align:middle;width:38px;height:38px;background:url('images/socialNetworks/logos-official-2019-05/google-logo.svg') transparent 50% no-repeat"></span><span style="color:#FFF;display:inline-block;vertical-align:middle;padding-left:15px;padding-right:42px;font-size:16px;font-family:Roboto, sans-serif">Continue with Google</span></div></a>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</form>Name: loginForm — POST https://www.researchgate.net/login?_sg=TPUmIOUVlftlblJvq0cPvNLyR91SayH0i4FFfCKSTUyqpyOpJwWKjksBKvqAEwyF74zUmAPEUL_vVA
<form method="post" action="https://www.researchgate.net/login?_sg=TPUmIOUVlftlblJvq0cPvNLyR91SayH0i4FFfCKSTUyqpyOpJwWKjksBKvqAEwyF74zUmAPEUL_vVA" name="loginForm" id="modalLoginForm"><input type="hidden" name="request_token"
value="aad-EIcLhznPYeeLapWVd0ys/HEM2Vfe/SuIpdzFsTYXiz+oVHP6dtE4bzOiNgaRgskW/FGZuphV78UQHf+Ws6VNsAeVYK3BpNoSupt0TyiiL4My7uDXHBNheolODqSQNQgTVw+UF38E+JZxJMjXxfgwciZdXmpg/FjVJDyMmxJyaFmVUI01zajmDTMvTNBH8HNVF626hcZG/GP2er0Pg+ioaY2///2N1BQefvk303dXffkq51tEnuAVTafN5hOZ8N533KAv7ZcyZTPJa9ea/FM="><input
type="hidden" name="urlAfterLogin" value="publication/340061036_2020_Events_Industry_Survey_Report_Risk_Readiness_Resilience"><input type="hidden" name="invalidPasswordCount" value="0"><input type="hidden" name="modalLogin" value="yes">
<div class="nova-legacy-l-form-group nova-legacy-l-form-group--layout-stack nova-legacy-l-form-group--gutter-s">
<div class="nova-legacy-l-form-group__item nova-legacy-l-form-group__item--width-auto@m-up"><label
class="nova-legacy-e-text nova-legacy-e-text--size-m nova-legacy-e-text--family-sans-serif nova-legacy-e-text--spacing-xxs nova-legacy-e-text--color-inherit nova-legacy-e-label" for="input-modal-login-label"><span
class="nova-legacy-e-label__text">Email <div class="lite-page-tooltip "><span class="nova-legacy-e-text nova-legacy-e-text--size-m nova-legacy-e-text--family-sans-serif nova-legacy-e-text--spacing-none nova-legacy-e-text--color-grey-500">·
Hint</span>
<div class="lite-page-tooltip__content lite-page-tooltip__content--above">
<div class="nova-legacy-e-text nova-legacy-e-text--size-s nova-legacy-e-text--family-sans-serif nova-legacy-e-text--spacing-none nova-legacy-e-text--color-inherit"><b>Tip:</b> Most researchers use their institutional email address as
their ResearchGate login</div>
<div class="lite-page-tooltip__arrow lite-page-tooltip__arrow--above">
<div class="lite-page-tooltip__arrow-tip"></div>
</div>
</div>
</div></span></label><input type="email" required="" placeholder="Enter your email" id="input-modal-login" name="login" autocomplete="email" tabindex="1"
class="nova-legacy-e-input__field nova-legacy-e-input__field--size-m nova-legacy-e-input__ambient nova-legacy-e-input__ambient--theme-default"></div>
<div class="nova-legacy-l-form-group__item nova-legacy-l-form-group__item--width-auto@m-up">
<div class="lite-page-modal__forgot"><label class="nova-legacy-e-text nova-legacy-e-text--size-m nova-legacy-e-text--family-sans-serif nova-legacy-e-text--spacing-xxs nova-legacy-e-text--color-inherit nova-legacy-e-label"
for="input-modal-password-label"><span
class="nova-legacy-e-label__text">Password</span></label><a class="nova-legacy-e-link nova-legacy-e-link--color-blue nova-legacy-e-link--theme-bare lite-page-modal__forgot-link" href="application.LostPassword.html">Forgot password?</a>
</div><input type="password" required="" placeholder="" id="input-modal-password" name="password" autocomplete="current-password" tabindex="2"
class="nova-legacy-e-input__field nova-legacy-e-input__field--size-m nova-legacy-e-input__ambient nova-legacy-e-input__ambient--theme-default">
</div>
<div class="nova-legacy-l-form-group__item nova-legacy-l-form-group__item--width-auto@m-up"><label class="nova-legacy-e-checkbox"><input type="checkbox" class="nova-legacy-e-checkbox__input" aria-invalid="false" checked="" value="yes"
name="setLoginCookie" tabindex="3"><span class="nova-legacy-e-checkbox__checkmark"></span><span class="nova-legacy-e-checkbox__label"> Keep me logged in</span></label></div>
<div class="nova-legacy-l-form-group__item nova-legacy-l-form-group__item--width-auto@m-up"><button
class="nova-legacy-c-button nova-legacy-c-button--align-center nova-legacy-c-button--radius-m nova-legacy-c-button--size-m nova-legacy-c-button--color-blue nova-legacy-c-button--theme-solid nova-legacy-c-button--width-full" type="submit"
width="full" tabindex="4"><span class="nova-legacy-c-button__label">Log in</span></button></div>
<div class="nova-legacy-l-form-group__item nova-legacy-l-form-group__item--width-auto@m-up">
<div
class="nova-legacy-l-flex__item nova-legacy-l-flex nova-legacy-l-flex--gutter-m nova-legacy-l-flex--direction-column@s-up nova-legacy-l-flex--align-items-center@s-up nova-legacy-l-flex--justify-content-flex-start@s-up nova-legacy-l-flex--wrap-nowrap@s-up">
<div class="nova-legacy-l-flex__item">
<div class="nova-legacy-e-text nova-legacy-e-text--size-s nova-legacy-e-text--family-sans-serif nova-legacy-e-text--spacing-none nova-legacy-e-text--color-inherit">or</div>
</div>
<div class="nova-legacy-l-flex__item">
<div
class="nova-legacy-l-flex__item nova-legacy-l-flex nova-legacy-l-flex--gutter-m nova-legacy-l-flex--direction-column@s-up nova-legacy-l-flex--align-items-center@s-up nova-legacy-l-flex--justify-content-flex-start@s-up nova-legacy-l-flex--wrap-nowrap@s-up">
<div class="nova-legacy-l-flex__item">
<a href="connector/google"><div style="display:inline-block;width:247px;height:40px;text-align:left;border-radius:2px;white-space:nowrap;color:#444;background:#4285F4"><span style="margin:1px 0 0 1px;display:inline-block;vertical-align:middle;width:38px;height:38px;background:url('images/socialNetworks/logos-official-2019-05/google-logo.svg') transparent 50% no-repeat"></span><span style="color:#FFF;display:inline-block;vertical-align:middle;padding-left:15px;padding-right:42px;font-size:16px;font-family:Roboto, sans-serif">Continue with Google</span></div></a>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="nova-legacy-l-flex__item">
<div class="nova-legacy-e-text nova-legacy-e-text--size-s nova-legacy-e-text--family-sans-serif nova-legacy-e-text--spacing-none nova-legacy-e-text--color-grey-500" align="center">No account?
<a class="nova-legacy-e-link nova-legacy-e-link--color-blue nova-legacy-e-link--theme-decorated" href="signup.SignUp.html?hdrsu=1&_sg%5B0%5D=Lzd4RJOLjZadX5SztzgaU_zFbXjdUyRDteUnBJaHar09mIEpvDNTkK88SiwQyuS76AS7udMmW3Rs64TXTYT4QqCRWno">Sign up</a>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</form>Text Content
Technical ReportPDF Available 2020 EVENTS INDUSTRY SURVEY REPORT: RISK, READINESS & RESILIENCE * March 2020 Authors: Peter Ashwin * University of Leceister Download full-text PDFRead full-text Download full-text PDF Read full-text Download citation Copy link Link copied -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Read full-text Download citation Copy link Link copied References (7) ABSTRACT How resilient is your team, organization and event in the face of uncertainty in today’s global risk society? The aim of the research was to gain a deeper insight into the current risk management practices adopted by event organizers and how they prepared their organizations and teams to manage adversity and uncertainty in today's global risk society. The 2020 Event Preparedness and Resilience Survey Report co-authored by Peter Ashwin (Event Risk Management Solutions) and Melanie Wilson (Blerter). The report was based on the analysis of of the data-set (responses) from over 160 industry leaders across 11 countries. Discover the world's research * 25+ million members * 160+ million publication pages * 2.3+ billion citations Join for free Powered By 10 How to make your scientific brand an industry name with always-on marketing Share Next Stay Skip Ad Public Full-text 1 Content uploaded by Peter Ashwin Author content All content in this area was uploaded by Peter Ashwin on Mar 20, 2020 Content may be subject to copyright. ERMS + Insights into concerns and risk management in the events industry. Event Preparedness and Resilience Survey Report 2020 Foreword 2 Executive Summary 4 Key findings 5 Survey summary 7 Trends in event risk management 8 Survey Findings 10 Risk management 10 Spotlight | Risk management 12 Security 14 Incidents 15 Governance 17 Spotlight | Getting the weather decision right 18 The event workforce 20 Workforce management 21 Communication 22 Technology 23 Spotlight | Collaboration and technology 25 Insurance 27 Financial and legal matters 28 Final Thoughts | Thought Leaders in Risk Management & Technology 29 Peter Ashwin | Director & Founder, Event Risk Management Solutions 29 Richard Gill | CEO & Co-Founder, Blerter 29 References 30 Contents Copyright © 2020 Event Risk Management Solutions and Cloud M Limited, trading as Blerter. All rights reserved. No parts of this report may be reproduced or used in any manner without proper attribution or the written permission of the copyright owners. Blerter and Event Risk Management Solutions are pleased to present the inaugural edition of the Event Preparedness and Resilience Survey, a comprehensive assessment of the state of risk management and preparedness in the live events industry. The survey ndings are based on the responses of 160 plus Event Directors, Owners, Security and Operations Directors from eleven countries around the world and represent thousands of events. We would like to thank all of the survey participants for their time and insights. Overall, the survey found that members of the events industry are becoming increasingly aware of the requirement to have risk management plans and risk-based safety and security protocols. There is little standardization across the events industry or individual events in the way that those risk-based plans are developed or implemented. Governance and ownership of risk management varies markedly from organization to organization, as does responsibility for operational security and decision-making. Awareness of event risk management is undeniably growing; we are seeing a transition from being insurance-led to proactive engagement by event leadership, but it is clear that the events industry faces a Dear peers, partners, colleagues and event gurus, significant number of challenges in achieving a more mature level of preparedness and capability to manage adverse results. In the current global climate of biological, environmental, economic and social uncertainty, a heightened awareness of risk means that event managers should conduct an honest review of their understanding and management of risk. This should be carried out with their core teams, and where practicable, with the guidance of an events risk expert. With webinars, presentations and workshops at association conferences, online templates and guides, and a growing software segment focused on event risk management, the tools and support are there to drive evolution in this area. We hope that this assessment of risk awareness and preparedness provides you with useful insights as you improve your understanding and effectiveness in event risk management. PETER ASHWIN RICHARD GILL ERMS BLERTER Foreword Peter A. R. Gill 2© BLERTER + ERMS Blerter is a simple, easy-to-use event delivery platform that helps you centralize your communications, operations and, safety processes - connecting your entire team in one place. Reduce risk, streamline delivery and increase engagement at your next event. HI@BLERTER.COM Melanie Wilson SPECIAL PROJECTS MANAGER, BLERTER Melanie is a member of the Blerter leadership team. She combines the discipline of an MBA with experience in endurance sports, education, and health & safety, to carry out research and business projects for Blerter and its partners. Event Risk Management Solutions is a consulting practice committed to supporting event committees and cities plan and deliver safe and secure events and festivals though industry leading risk management practices and integrated security design solutions for today’s uncertain world. PETER.ASHWIN@ERMSGLOBAL.COM Peter Ashwin PRINCIPAL AND FOUNDER, ERMS Peter is recognized as an industry leader for developing strategies and pragmatic solutions to integrate event organizing committees with Government Security Authorities, Police and the private security sector within complex event environments. Over the last twenty years, he has led and managed multi-national, major event teams in Australia, USA, Azerbaijan, Canada, Greece, Italy and the UK. Blerter and ERMS are committed to conducting research that adds value and keeps people safe. 2019 saw the inaugural survey on event preparedness and resilience, with the aim of measuring progress and highlighting opportunities for improvement. We look forward to your feedback and thoughts! The Event Preparedness & Resilience Survey ERMS 3© BLERTER + ERMS The live entertainment industry is going through a period of growth. A 2014 Nielsen study reported that 102 million people attend at least one festival each year in the US, with over 34 million individuals attending music festivals. In 2018, the Financial Times reported a 12% increase from 2016 to 2017 in live music attendees, and 14 million people attending festivals in the United Kingdom annually. An already busy events calendar is becoming even more crowded as organizers and new entrants respond to growing demand. This being the case, competition is increasing for workers and volunteers, security and city services, as well as for funding. Competition for attendees has also created a trend for more and more “unique” event experiences. Unique experiences and exotic locations add levels of complexity to an already complicated planning and risk management process. One such event that failed to manage its complexity was the 2017 Fyre Festival. The organizer’s promise of an exotic, luxurious experience in a remote location has been discussed at length in the media, and examined in at least two documentaries. Public infamy and legal consequences followed the organizer’s failure to identify risks, plan adequately or manage adverse weather and supply chain hurdles, and the whole sorry saga is a reminder that a failed event can affect the economic and environmental wellbeing of a local region and its residents. There are millions of events held each year, the majority without a Fyre-like failure or major incident. However, the area of risk management is not implemented in a standardized way. Results from the ERMS+Blerter 2019 Event Preparedness and Resilience Survey suggest that event organizers rely on insurance and contracted security, whether police or private, to manage incidents and their impact, rather than in conjunction with a comprehensive risk management strategy. This is underlined by a disparity between survey respondents’ self-assessment of mission-readiness and risk maturity, and the relatively low numbers who have up-to-date plans and suitable training strategies. The ERMS+Blerter 2019 Event Preparedness and Resilience Survey assesses the events industry’s risk management practices and the challenges it faces in the current environment. The survey was conducted in the second half of 2019 and includes responses from 160 industry members from eleven countries. The questions were designed by Peter Ashwin, a recognized thought leader in Event Risk Management, and the survey was conducted by Blerter, a market leader in event communications, operations and safety management software. Executive Summary 4© BLERTER + ERMS A little dose of reality. While 86% of survey respondents assessed their risk management processes as “Mature” or “Emerging”, 75% said that they do no onsite emergency response training with their workers. 59% said that they never conduct evacuation drills or training, and 37% that they do no incident management training with their teams at all. Mission-readiness is an area where confidence levels are more representative of the evidence. Only 16.6% of respondents rate themselves as “Mission-ready” while 61.1% consider themselves “Somewhat ready”. One size does not fit all. Each event has its own particular shape and challenges. In spite of this, the survey tells us that most event organizers rely on annual or one-off risk management and safety planning. Only 18% have a risk management plan that is less than 12 months old, 21% say that they do not have a plan at all, and 14% don’t know whether they have a plan or not. When it comes to cleaning up, should something go wrong, respondents are consistent. 100% have at least one insurance policy. 94% have general liability cover, 23% for event cancellation, and 8% for rain cover. 6% indicate that their insurance cover is not event-specific. Roles, responsibilities and decision-making. While 85% of respondents have a Board or Executive, only 27% are fully engaged in risk management. Roles and responsibility for risk and safety are spread across the event team and workforce, offering the potential for confusion. 37% consider the Operations Director responsible for risk management, and 22% believe that it sits with the CEO or Executive Director. Another 22% believe that the Police or EMS services are responsible for risk management at their events. Crowd management is another area where there is little uniformity. 35% believe that volunteers and event workers are responsible, 32% private security, and 32% the police. The decision to evacuate an event has significant financial and reputational ramifications. While 23% assign that responsibility to the Police, 27% say that the Event Director makes the decision, and 18% the CEO or Executive Director. Only 17% said that their Operations Director or Manager was responsible for deciding to evacuate an event. Key findings 5© BLERTER + ERMS How do you know what you don’t know? 95% of respondents have experienced an incident at their event in the past five years. However, only 31% have a system for reporting near misses, meaning that over two-thirds of organizers do not have the full picture. Visibility over the wider event team is managed in a variety of ways, although 19% of respondents say that they do not track their workforce. Workers’ access to safety guides and event information is generally managed through point-in-time documents distributed by email (89%), as hard copies (85%), by text message (58%) and through social media (40%). Only 18% use a mobile application, and 37% another tech platform. Communication methods are dominated by old technology. Hand-held radios remain the go-to communication tool for events, whether for operational (87%) or emergency communications (89%). The use of text messages (89% and 71% respectively) is also common, although a surprising 27% of respondents use email for emergency communications. 13% use social media. The use of mobile apps is not yet commonplace. 29% of those surveyed use them for operational communications and 22% for emergencies. However, as 92% of respondents said that most people use a smartphone at their events, the use of apps is likely to increase over time, as it offers both cost efficiencies and wider reach for important communications. Concerns about rising costs for security have proved to be true. 42% of respondents consider increases in safety and security costs as one of their top five concerns, the second most common concern after severe weather (58%). 53% say that they have experienced significant cost increases for security over the past five years. The recovery of costs for police and public services is likely to become even more of an urgent topic between event organizers and municipalities. The majority of organizers (51%) have a budget of less than $100,000 but require both private security (55% always and another 15% depending on the event) and police in attendance (65% always, and 26% sometimes). Event security and screening measures are not as universal as you might think. While most respondents (81%) use multiple measures to screen and monitor people and safety at their events, a surprising 19% do not use any security controls at all. Exactly half (50%) do not conduct any form of attendee screening measures, such as bag checks, pat downs or metal detectors. 42% of respondents consider increases in safety and security costs as one of the top five concerns... Find out more If you haven’t used an event delivery platform before, get a quick overview of Blerter. WATCH OVERVIEW 6© BLERTER + ERMS 2019 EVENTS INDUSTRY 78% of Event Directors / Managers consider themselves “Mission-ready” or “Somewhat ready” yet... 59% don’t conduct evacuation drills and 37% admit that they don’t have an evacuation plan. 45% consider their risk management processes to be “Mature” yet... Only 18% have up-to-date risk management plans. 21% admit that they don’t have a plan at all (and 14% aren’t sure) 61% 22% 17% MISSION READY SOMEWHAT READY NOT READY 56% have had slips and falls causing injury 29% have had a weather related evacuation 17% have had a crowd safety incident 15% have had a death or serious injury 11% have had a temporary structure collapse MATURE EMERGING AD HOC 45%41%14% But.. 75% don’t do any emergency response training with their event workers or volunteers and 37% don’t do incident management training with their team. 1 2 3 Are you mission-ready? Want to share the highlights? DOWNLOAD THE INFOGRAPHIC 7© BLERTER + ERMS Trends in event risk management The regularity with which events are subject to disruption of one kind or another has spawned a specific event risk management sector. As the sector grows in size, maturity and visibility, a range of sources are making information, advice and resources more widely available. Workshops are commonplace at industry meetings and conferences. Risk management and health & safety have become a compulsory part of many courses of study in event planning and management. Sessions on security and risk are well-attended, often crowded, at conventions and it is common for law enforcement and/or local bodies to have representatives contributing to panels on safety and security. Government and municipal agencies are developing a wide range of free resources. The importance of events to cities and local communities is illustrated by the resources that local and national government bodies are committing to developing materials, training courses, and in access to advisors. In the United States, for example, the Department of Homeland Security offers a range of guides, templates and training on its website, and has advisors and experts available regionally. Smartphone penetration is changing the way we seek information. The days of paper tickets and event-worker phonebook-width manuals are numbered, as both attendees and event staff look to engage online, using their personal mobile devices. As a result, the event software market is booming, with over 80,000 companies developing solutions for all areas of event management. Having access to up-to-the-minute information is rapidly becoming an expectation rather than a wishlist item, particularly among Millennials and Gen Z. Risk management practice is maturing faster in some industries than in others. There is growing interest worldwide in risk management and preparedness, with some industries further along the journey than others. The events industry is lagging behind those with more predictable, measurable environments, but there is growing awareness that the very uncertainty inherent in high risk, outdoor or multi-venue events must drive change. 8© BLERTER + ERMS Cybersecurity and data protection laws are here to stay. The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) was implemented in May 2018 and is considered to be the biggest change in privacy laws in the last 20 years. The way event organizers collect, store, share and use people’s information has had to evolve quickly to comply with requirements, and this has meant relying heavily on software companies making changes to their products. The introduction of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) on January 1st, 2020, is predicted to have a similar impact on events in the United States to that experienced by European Union members over the past 18 months, and is expected to trigger adoption of similar legislation across the country. Increased awareness of sexual assault in sport and at music festivals is driving change. In the wake of the #metoo movement, awareness of inappropriate behavior around events has gathered momentum as people, particularly young women, take to social media and online forums to say “enough”. A recent study commissioned by the Press Association in the UK indicates that statistics on sexual incidents at music festivals are just the tip of the iceberg. Only 2% of assaults are reported to the police, although 22% of festival attendees experience unwanted sexual behavior, and 43% of women under forty. Many festivals around the world deploy specially-trained volunteers and responders around their events, to engage with crowds and encourage supportive, respectful behaviour. Some events have designated safe spaces and reporting phone lines. National sports agencies have implemented education programs for coaches, medical staff, team managers, athletes, and in some cases, volunteers. Codes of conduct, such as SafeSport in the US, are being used to address athlete safety and set out behavioral expectations. Only 2% of assaults are reported to the police, although 22% of festival attendees experience unwanted sexual behavior... 9© BLERTER + ERMS Survey findings risk management Risk management 45% of respondents consider their risk management processes to be “Mature”, and another 41% “Emerging”. Only 14% say that their risk management was “Ad Hoc”. Responsibility for risk management most often sits with the Operations Director, the CEO or the Police/EMS. While 86% of participants believe their risk assessment maturity to be full or emerging, only 18% have a risk management plan that is less than 12 months old, and only 19% carry out reviews more than once a year. 21% of respondents do not have a plan at all, and 44% do not know how often there was a risk management review. Less than a year ago 18% In the past 5 years 33% More than 5 years ago 14% Don’t have one 21% Don’t know 14% Monthly 6% Quarterly 4% 6-monthly 9% Annually 37% Don’t know 44% REVIEWEDRISK MANAGEMENT PLAN DEVELOPED MATURE EMERGING AD HOC %%% Operations Director/Manager CEO/Executive Director Police /EMS CFO Consultant Insurance broker Don’t know % % % % % % % Responsibility for risk management 10© BLERTER + ERMS Most participants indicate that their event(s) have a number of safety plans and procedures, including 60% of people who say that they have a specific plan to respond to severe weather, which correlates to the 58% who give weather as a top-5 concern, and the 43% who have had a previous weather-related evacuation. The challenges identified in developing appropriate risk management plans include a lack of budget for external support, and a lack of time and expertise. The importance of effective risk management was reflected in the number of participants that have undertaken formal risk management training (72%). However, risk and related training appears to be less consistent across the wider event workforce, with onsite emergency training taking place for only 25% of events. Lack of budget for external support 31% Lack of time available 25% Lack of buy-in from Board/Executive 8% Limited / no experience 20% CHALLENGES IN DEVELOPING A RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN ( % DON’T KNOW ) Emergency management plan 83% Event security plan 69% Evacuation plan 63% Severe weather plan 60% Site safety induction 45% Active shooter plan 31% Crowd management plan 34% Safety policy for vehicle operations 32% Shelter-in-place plans 26% Emergency response training onsite Tabletop training pre-event Incident response training % % % % % % Risk, emergency and incident management training undertaken TRAINING CARRIED OUT NO ASSOCIATED TRAINING 11© BLERTER + ERMS Spotlight: Risk management According to the Risk Management Institute of Australasia, risk is : “[...] the loss (or gain) arising from people, systems or external events which have the potential to cause the organization to deviate from its objectives.” Risk management is defined by the US Department of Homeland Security (2011 : Risk Fundamentals) as : “the identification, assessment, and prioritization of risks, followed by coordinated and economical application of resources to minimize, monitor, and control the probability and/or impact of unfortunate events.” Intrinsic to the concept of risk, therefore, are the ideas of likelihood (the chance of something happening, the potential probability that a given risk will occur), and consequence (the impact outcome of an event, which has an effect on objectives). The unavoidable fact is that all organizations and endeavors face a range of risks. “All organizations work in an environment characterized by risk. Successful organizations not only understand these risks but use an understanding of these risks to make risk informed decisions.” ISO () RISK MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES The need for effective risk management is particularly relevant for the events industry, as organizers and host cities are operating in a complex, multi-stakeholder landscape, and facing challenges from the economic to the environmental, behavioural to digital and beyond. Competition for sponsorship, talent, venues, attendees, security personnel and calendar space are familiar and consistent “known” risks (the “known knowns”, as Donald Rumsfeld would say ), but what about the “known unknowns”, or even the “unknown unknowns”? Opportunity and risk come in pairs. BANGAMBIKI HABYARIMANA 12© BLERTER + ERMS Most event organizers are actively managing known risks, but many have not yet implemented a structured approach to ensure that foreseeable risks are identified, assessed, evaluated and documented. The survey results suggest that, while a small percentage of organizers have an up-to-date plan, most are not carrying out regular reviews, or being effective in deploying the plan across the wider workforce. One method for approaching risk management is to work with a recognized framework, setting out the stages in developing a risk strategy. The ISO 31000 diagram below illustrates a series of steps, shows the linkages and ongoing requirements for monitoring and reviews, and the requirement for communication and consultation throughout the journey. There are also three proven concepts that a team can work through, to enhance their resilience and build knowledge and capability for addressing the known, and the unknown risks to their organization and event. These are : 1. Risk-based event planning and decision-making 2. “Secure by design” principles for enhancing safe and secure guest experiences 3. Operational-readiness exercises, education and training. By taking a structured approach to developing a proactive risk management strategy, and by sharing the learning journey with event workers, volunteers, sponsors, vendors, exhibitors, medical teams and the wider events community, event organizers have the opportunity to influence the events industry culture as a whole, as well as empower their people to be ready and able to respond if, or when, the moment calls. © 2019 Event Risk Management Solutions LLC. All Rights Reserved. E.R.M. - Enterprise Risk Management . ESTABLISH THE CONTENT . RISK IDENTIFICATION . RISK ANALYSIS . RISK EVALUATION . RISK TREATMENT . MONITORING & REVIEW COMMUNICATION & CONSULTATION RISK ASSESSMENT 13© BLERTER + ERMS Security The types and number of security measures in place at events varies widely. While 59% of respondents say that they have a game-day security command and control center, an even 50% say that they carry out no security screening of participants. Combined with only 41% having a physical check-in for the wider event workforce, this area warrants further attention. The indications point to a yawning gap in preventing dangerous or contraband items being brought onto event sites. Security command & control center Perimeter security fence Security video surveilance system Hostile vehicle mitigation (blocking vehicles) Pre-event sweep by K9 explosive detector dogs Hostile vehicle mitigation (temporary or mechanical bollards) Police SWAT teams Hostile vehicle mitigation (permanent bollards) Walk-through metal detectors (“mags”) Vehicle inspections/search Drone detection systems None Bag checks only Bag checks and handheld metal detectors K9 explosive detection dogs Bag checks and “pat downs” Walk-through metal detectors and x-rays Don’t know None % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Security measures in place during the event Screening measures at the event 14© BLERTER + ERMS Incidents Severe weather, rising security costs, active shooters and crowd safety are the most common concerns. Among those, the increased cost of security was most commonly experienced in the past five years, and second only to slips and falls across all respondents. Event evacuation has affected almost half of the respondents, with weather the most common cause. However, although 46% have had at least one evacuation, 32% never carry out evacuation drills and 22% say that they carry them out just prior to their event. % % % % CONCERNS (IN TOP ) INCIDENTS (PAST YEARS) Incidents and concerns over the past 5 years None Weather Bomb threat Suspicious package Structural failure Terrorist act or threat Wildfire Active shooter Other Never Just prior to the event Annually Unsure when the last one was Once in the last 2 years Once in the last 5 years Slips or falls Vehicle ramming crowd Temporary infrastructure failure Lost child Terrorism Data breach/cyber security Bomb threat Drone intrusion Golf cart incidents Sexual assault Fraud/embezzlement Other Death or serious injury Event cancellation Crowd safety incidents Severe weather Security & safety costs Active shooter % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Causes of event evacuations Evacuation training & drills 15© BLERTER + ERMS When it comes to building a risk profile, there are likely to be gaps in awareness, as the tracking of ‘near misses’ is not widespread, only 31% of respondents carrying out Near Miss reporting. A further 14% are not aware of whether there was a system for reporting near misses or not. The responsibility for making evacuation decisions is an area of inconsistency, while management of crowd behaviour and incidents is spread across frontline workforce groups. Incident management training methods and responsibility vary. While some employ a number of methods to deliver training, over a third do not carry out incident response training at all. Event Director/Event Manager Police Commander/other Officer CEO/Executive Director Event Operations Manager/Director Venue Owner/Facilities Manager Safety Officer Other Event Director/Manager Security officer or Director External consultant Event Coordinator Police Other Event staff & volunteers Private security Police Commander/other Officer Don’t know Other Tabletop exercises Internal workshops Onlinebriefings/training External trainer-led workshop Public training courses Other None % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Person responsible for deciding whether to evacuate an event Person responsible for delivering training Group responsible for crowd management Method for delivering training Near miss reporting system NEAR MISS RECORDING NO SYSTEM DON’T KNOW %%% 16© BLERTER + ERMS Governance 85% of respondents indicate that their typical events have a Board of Directors or Executive. However, engagement in risk management at that level has room for improvement, with only 27% saying that their Board members are fully engaged. FULLY ENGAGED SOMEWHAT ENGAGED NOT ENGAGED DON’T KNOW NO BOARD Board / Executive engagement in risk management % % % % % 17© BLERTER + ERMS Spotlight: Getting the weather decision right The past decade has seen an increase in the frequency and the impact of weather events, as well as higher rates of climate-related illness and, particularly when combined with drug use, death. So, it is no surprise that 58% of the event managers surveyed consider severe weather to be a key concern. With the best will in the world to predict, understand and act on meteorological forecasts, the weather remains one of the most difficult considerations in the outdoor events game. As the weather is a known but not necessarily predictable hazard, and carries a high potential risk to revenue, attendee experience, safety and event success, event organizers are exploring ways to have better weather information and better response plans. Designated meteorologists or meteorology consultancy services are becoming more common, as are mobile app and monitoring technology, although delays in information updates are still a concern. Having access to the right meteorological information, and having practised and practical protocols for responding to different types of weather are essential for a safe event cancellation, venue evacuation or shelter-in-place solution. However, there are two more considerations that are also essential to a safe, timely outcome: who, how, where and when is the decision made; and how quickly and effectively are the ow-on measures enacted. Having a clear, concise decision-making framework allows decision-makers to focus on processing the information they have and on achieving the right outcome, rather than on the mechanics of the decision itself. Familiarity with the framework, and with each other, can be built by going through simulations, tabletop exercises, or other training. Climate is what we expect, weather is what we get. MARK TWAIN 18© BLERTER + ERMS One framework that has been successfully used for making decisions in uncertain environments is the OODA loop. Following the OODA steps empowers the event team to work quickly and methodically, and evaluate information rather than reacting prematurely or panicking. It also ensures that the right person or people are involved in making the decision, whether to meet city or facility requirements, or to satisfy an insurance policy. The series of actions and their associated questions shown below also allow the event team to make any updates or contextually-driven changes to relevant plans, communication process, to deploy or redeploy resources as needed, and to get buy-in from key stakeholders. © 2019 Event Risk Management Solutions LLC. All Rights Reserved. Weather is one hazard that can escalate dramatically in a short space of time, and with relatively little warning. The decision to cancel an event can occur after it has begun, and lead to a venue evacuation. For outdoor venues, there are two international standards for evacuation time guidelines: - The Event Safety Guide (2014) - 15 minutes - UK Green Guide (1999, 2018, 2edn) - 8 minutes An Egress (Evacuation) System is a critical control for any event, whether indoors or outdoors, single venue or multiple venues. It should be well-designed and well-signaled, and all members of the event workforce should know the planned system well, have access to real-time, up-to-date information, and receive notication of changes. “[The system should be] … designed to allow people to move from a real or perceived location of hazard to a location of relative safety during a hazard event.” TUBBS & MEACHAM, , P. . OBSERVE . ORIENT / ASSESS . DECIDE . ACT OODA LOOP • What has happened? • What do I know? • What is the mission impact? • Who needs to know and what? • What are the info gaps? • How much time do I have? • Am I empowered to act or escalate to the decision maker? • Identify courses of action & “wargame” • Select best course of action • Agree the plan (key stakeholders) • Confirm support & resource requirements • Execute the plan • Brief & communicate • Report & “close loops” - upstream & down stream 19© BLERTER + ERMS The event workforce Delivering an event often means a rapid, exponential increase in the number of people working together. Typically small, permanent teams, the workforce for a particular event may increase ten- or hundred-fold overnight, with temporary workers, contractors, volunteers, security, police ofers and medical teams. Police officers and private security are present at events for more than half of the respondents, with both the cost and availability, particularly of city-supplied services, a concern. 59% have a designated Safety Officer at a typical event. The number of vendors, suppliers, employees and contractors was not explicitly queried in the survey, and interviews with event, festival and fair managers suggest that volunteers sourced through community groups, charities and sports clubs may well not have been included in the numbers below. - POLICE PRIVATE SECURITY $-K % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % - $-$K - $-$K - $-$K - $-$K $K+ - - - + FULLTIME / PERMANENT STAFF PAID WORKERS POLICE/PUBLIC COSTS VOLUNTEERS PRIVATE SECURITY COSTS Typical numbers of different types of event “worker” ALWAYS AS NEEDED NEVER DON’T KNOW % % % % % % 20© BLERTER + ERMS Workforce management A large, temporary workforce complicates people management processes, and has the potential to create confusion. As well as providing relevant information to all concerned, there are also challenges around maintaining visibility over workers and volunteers onsite, and ensuring that updates and notications are reaching the right people in time. Providing access to information is an area with little consistency across the industry. Hard copies and point-in-time documents sent by email dominate, suggesting that there is room to improve access to live (real-time) information using people’s smartphones and devices connected directly with the event operations center. The onboarding process for 32% of respondents is an SMS/text-message method. 31% use email, and 26% meetings or paper manuals. When it comes to knowing who is onsite, physical and face to face methods dominate, with 41% having a physical site check-in. 44% of respondents do not have direct visibility over their game-day workforce. Email SMS Meetings/ Face-to-face Hard copies Mobile app Other tech platforms Social media Phycical check point Team leader reports We don’t Digital checkin GPS tracking Other % % % % % % % % % % % % % Onsite workforce visibilityOn-boarding and general comms % % % % % % % % EMAILHARD COPY (MEETING) HARD COPY IN SECURITY OFFICE OTHER HARD COPY OTHER DOCUMENTS ONLINE INDUCTION MOBILE APP OTHER Access to safety information 21© BLERTER + ERMS Communication Communication during an event is dominated by the use of hand-held radios and text messages/SMS. While there is consistent, commonplace use of both, 51% of event managers change the way they communicate with their workers during an emergency. While there is a growing range of AI-powered analytical tools for measuring and predicting crowd flows through attendees’ social media activity, and through the deployment of drones, beacons and other designated hardware, the crowd-sourcing of information from thousands of workers’, contractors’, vendors’, volunteers’ and participants’ smartphones is predicted to become commonplace in the near future, as penetration rates reach near-saturation. 65% of respondents say that their workers report suspicious behaviour or other concerns through text messages versus 85% by radio. Rather than deploying more radios as events grow, the ability to reach large groups of workers quickly, and to keep information secure is likely to cause an increase in the use of mobile applications and online platforms. Two-way radio Text/SMS Email Mobile app Runners Social media Other Two-way radio Text/SMS Email Mobile app Runners Social media Other % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % RADIOS TEXTS / SMS MOBILE APP OTHER TECH RUNNERS EMAILS SOCIAL MEDIA Methods for workers to report concerns Emergency communication Operational communication 22© BLERTER + ERMS Technology The event software market is growing rapidly, with over 80,000 companies positioning themselves as event solutions. The majority of these companies focus on customer-facing activities such as registration, ticketing, advertising and attendee engagement. However, the number of companies providing software for event delivery, operations and safety is starting to grow, reecting increased demand for these tools by event organizers. 68% of respondents say that they are satisfied or somewhat satisfied with their use of technology in risk management, while almost a third say that they are not satisfied. In the area of risk management, hard copies (85%) and email (89%) are most commonly used across the planning and managing of operations, in conjunction with growing levels of collaborative technology. Effective collaboration during planning and real-time targeted communication are two areas that have been found lacking in a number of incident investigations. With the growing use of mobile phones for on-boarding and text messaging for communications, it seems likely that the use of mobile phones to connect groups of workers will spread to include the planning, operations and risk management functions. With the implementation of the GDPR (Europe) in 2018, and the California Consumer Privacy Act due to take effect in 2020, the use of mobile apps is predicted to replace text messaging, in order for organizers to more easily control access to data, photos and sensitive information. The use of a software platform, while it does not prevent screenshots or similar, does allow event managers to track access, investigate breaches, and aggrege data to better protect information. Satisfied Somewhat satisfied Not satisfied Satisfaction with current use of technology to manage risk Email 89% Texts/SMS 58% Paper 85% Social media 40% Meetings 60% Tech platform 37% Mobile app 18% % % % 23© BLERTER + ERMS Spending on event software is difficult to analyze, without a deeper look at respondents’ definition of “event technology”. Two-way radios, for example, may be considered “event tech” by some organizers, but not by others. However, with 12% spending more than a quarter of their event budget on technology, this will surely be a matter for more research in the future. Hard copies and printed forms are also the commonly used for incident tracking and reporting, with 77% of respondents using those formats and only 29% using Incident Management/Safety Management Software. Technology most commonly used for incident management Hard copies Excel, Word or other office software IMS/SMS on-premise IMS/SMS cloud-based Mobile app Other Word of mouth Referrals Industry publications Partners Analyst reports Online reviews Vendor materials Salespeople % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % -% % -% % -% % >% % DON’T KNOW Portion of budget spent on event technology Influences on choice of technology supplier 24© BLERTER + ERMS Spotlight: Collaboration and technology The success of any operation relies on the timely transfer of relevant and up-to-date information. For an event, organizers engage with different groups and individuals at different stages in the event life-cycle, from planning, to set-up and pack-down, in addition to “game-day” itself. When it comes to risk management, communication and collaboration are as important as the right plans, safety standards and processes. Hand-held radios remain the default method for workforce communication at outdoor events, but the cost and complexity involved are causing many event teams to supplement their radio strategy with text messaging, email, online platforms, social media, and more recently, mobile apps. With a mixture of communication media, there are certain aspects that event teams need to keep top of mind. Coverage: when the worst happens, instructions and updates need to reach as many of the event workforce as possible. Relying on telephone trees and runners means delays, and can lead to messages being diluted or “lost in translation”. Security: data privacy regulations are tightening around the world, from the European GDPR to the California Consumer Privacy Act and beyond. It is no longer acceptable to send a photo of a missing child to event workers’ phones unless it can later be deleted by the event manager, or to allow volunteers to access participants’ information unless there are robust controls in place. Consistency: the range of places to nd or submit information for a single event can truly boggle the mind. A volunteer or vendor may have a physical check-in onsite, and have been emailed the event safety manual. They may have a paper form to ll out to report an incident, be required to join social media group or keep an eye on their text messages for updates. Consistent, simple communication channels reduce confusion across a temporary workforce, allow an event team better visibility over the different groups, and make it easier to conduct investigations or audits post-event. The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place. GEORGE BERNARD SHAW 25© BLERTER + ERMS Crowd-sourcing: most events have a small group of permanent members, but use an expanded workforce to deliver events. Team leaders, security personnel and police are connected to the command center, but there may be hundreds, even thousands, of volunteers, suppliers and vendors around the venue throughout the event who are involved in spotting and managing issues. Giving as many as possible an easy, direct way to report concerns and actions, even when no damage has resulted, allows the core team to align and manage their resources in a proactive rather than reactive way to manage hazards and reduce risk. In a study into mortality at music festivals, Turris and Lund (2016, updated 2017)) identify the root causes of 924 fatalities from 1999 to 2014. The most common root cause was stakeholder groups planning in isolation. The result of this was fragmentation, gaps and overlap in information, in essential roles, and in complicated and poorly understaood division of responsibilities. The authors propose the “Event Chain of Survival” framework to connect essential groups throughout the event life-cycle. Groups that they consider essential in planning, responding, managing and reviewing are : - Event producers - Police and security - Ambulance services - On-site medical services - Festival health teams - Off-site medical services (drug-testing, etc.) The framework is focused on preventing deaths at music festivals through connecting security and medical groups, but highlights the importance of effective communication and stakeholder engagement in risk management. The use of technology in event management is providing ways for these, and other groups to collaborate more easily and more efficiently, and is becoming an essential element in event planning and delivery. It has been more fragmented and less effective in its use in emergency response and incident management, but the growing number of companies focusing on those capabilities indicates that the tools available for this will become more sophisticated and more widely used in the near future. As smartphone penetration rates approach saturation in most developed societies, the use of secure online platforms and mobile app for event operations and safety management will increase, with volunteers and the wider workforce using their own devices over secure, designated wireless networks. This will allow organizers to repurpose a portion of their event tech budget away from radios and towards secure, event delivery and safety management software. Learn more If you haven’t used an event delivery platform before, get a quick overview of Blerter. WATCH OVERVIEW 26© BLERTER + ERMS Insurance Insurance is the most consistently applied risk management method, with 100% having cover of at least one type. Across the industry, insurance has long been regarded as synonymous with ‘risk management’, but the focus on safety, planning, preparedness and risk-related training at industry conferences over the past few years indicates that this perspective is changing. Financial and legal risk are areas that insurance cover can help to mitigate, should an event be cancelled, or an incident cause damage to property, financial loss, injury or death. However, having effective risk management and communication strategies allows organizers to eliminate or control hazards, and minimize the impact of incidents. Doing this, in conjunction with the right insurance, can mean the difference between an event surviving for another year or not. General Liability 94% Workers’ Compensation 49% Directors & Officers 34% Liquor Liability 35% Event Cancellation 23% Within 12 months 11% Within 1-5 years 34% 5-10 years ago 9% Never 45% Vendor Insurance 22% Rain Cover 8% Headline Talent Cancellation 8% Other 9% Not event-specific 6% 1 claim 22% 2-4 claims 24% 5-10 claims 8% None 46% 45% of events have never had to make an insurance claim. 11% indicate at least one claim within the past 12 months. INSURANCE POLICIES BY TYPE OF COVER LAST INSURANCE CLAIM INSURANCE CLAIMS (PAST YRS) 27© BLERTER + ERMS Financial and legal matters More than half of those surveyed spend less than $20,000 USD on private security for a typical event. 45% spend even less than that on police and public services. Among those who do engage police or public services, 71% fully or partially recover the related costs. When it came to questions relating to legal matters, response rates were low. Of those respondents, 75% had reached a settlement for less than $50,000 USD, and 25% for between $100,000 USD and $250,000 USD. Yes 23% No 52% Don’t know 25% Past 12 months 13% Past 5 years 47% Past 10 years 27% N/A 13% PREVIOUSLY NAMED AS A DEFENDANT MOST RECENT OCCASION % % % % % % % > $K > $K FULL $K-$K $K-$K PARTIAL $K-K $K-K NO RECOVERY $K-$K $K-$K DON’T KNOW $K-$M $K-$K $M-$M $K-$M+ $M-$M DON’T KNOW Total event budget (typical event) Typical expense for private security and police/public services Private Security Cost recovery for police/city serivces Police/public % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % Legal matters : Let’s not talk about it... 28© BLERTER + ERMS Richard Gill CEO & CO-FOUNDER BLERTER If you want to really get to know a culture, participating in the festivals, sports and events that matter to its people is one of the best ways to do it. Events are where we connect with each other, nd our social tribe, express ourselves, and share experiences. Making amazing events happen is no easy task. From the Event Director through to the volunteers, blood, sweat and sometimes tears go into creating great experiences and keeping people safe and sound. We, the Blerter team, salute you and stand with you. That’s why we are committed to carrying out research and sharing our learnings with our customers, partners and our whole industry. If we all work together, the future of events is bigger, brighter, and safer for us all. Peter Ashwin PRINCIPAL & FOUNDER EVENT RISK MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS In today’s uncertain world, event organizers and host cities nd themselves operating in complex, multi-stakeholder environments. The challenges faced are signicant and wide ranging. Organizers generally view risk management as a key responsibility, so it was surprising that less than 33% of respondents have a “risk management plan” or risk register. A risk management plan is fundamental to ensuring that your team is prepared for the “knowns” and the “unknowns”. We may not be able to predict when and where a risk event may occur but both Blerter and ERMS are committed to this journey with you, and I’m confident that together, we can support the events industry to deliver safer and more secure events. Final Thoughts: Thought leaders in risk management & technology 29© BLERTER + ERMS Ashwin, P. (2019). Protecting Your Events and Preparing for Uncertainty. SportsTravel Magazine : Oct 7, 2019. www.sportstravelmagazine.com. Hanbury, Mary (2019). Fyre Festival Expectations vs Reality. Business Insider : Jan 20, 2019. www.businessinsider.com. Lund, A. & Turris S. (2017). The Event Chain of Survival in the Context of Music Festivals: A Framework for Improving Outcomes at Major Planned Events. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2017 Aug: 32(4): 437-443. Mumford, G. (2018). ‘Victims know they can call us’ - Cannes sexual harassment hotline up and running. The Guardian : May 11, 2018. www.theguardian.com. Sounds of Summer 2016: A Snapshot of Music Festival Fans. Nielsen. www.nielsen.com Tubbs, J. and Meacham, B. (2007). Egress Design Systems : A Guide to Evacuation & Crowd Management Planning. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Turris, S.A. & Lund, A. (2016). Mortality at Music Festivals: Academic and Grey Literature for Case Finding. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2017 Feb;32(1):58-63. UK Music : Wish you were here 2017. www.ukmusic.org. U.S. Department of Justice : Planning and Managing Security for Major Special Events (Guidelines for Law Enforcement). www.hsdl.org. Vanderbilt Industries : Examining security measures at major sporting events. June 14, 2018. www.vanderbiltindustries.com. Wynn-Moylan (2018). Risk and Hazard Management for Festivals and Events. Routledge : UK. YouGov / Press Association Survey Results. June 21, 2018. https://yougov.co.uk. References Copyright © 2020 Event Risk Management Solutions and Cloud M Limited, trading as Blerter. All rights reserved. No parts of this report may be reproduced or used in any manner without proper attribution or the written permission of the copyright owners. 30 Get advice Every event is different, so expert advice is essential. Talk to ERMS about your next event. Learn more If you haven’t used an event delivery platform before, get a quick overview of Blerter. Request a demo Want to see Blerter in action? Talk to us about the challenges you’re facing. CONNECT NOW WATCH OVERVIEW TALK TO US + ERMS CITATIONS (0) REFERENCES (7) ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication. The Event Chain of Survival in the Context of Music Festivals: A Framework for Improving Outcomes at Major Planned Events Article Full-text available * Mar 2017 * Adam Lund * Sheila Turris Despite the best efforts of event producers and on-site medical teams, there are sometimes serious illnesses, life-threatening injuries, and fatalities related to music festival attendance. Producers, clinicians, and researchers are actively seeking ways to reduce the mortality and morbidity associated with these events. After analyzing the available literature on music festival health and safety, several major themes emerged. Principally, stakeholder groups planning in isolation from one another (ie, in silos) create fragmentation, gaps, and overlap in plans for major planned events (MPEs). The authors hypothesized that one approach to minimizing this fragmentation may be to create a framework to “connect the dots,” or join together the many silos of professionals responsible for safety, security, health, and emergency planning at MPEs. Adapted from the well-established literature regarding the management of cardiac arrests, both in and out of hospital, the “chain of survival” concept is applied to the disparate groups providing services that support event safety in the context of music festivals. The authors propose this framework for describing, understanding, coordinating and planning around the integration of safety, security, health, and emergency service for events. The adapted Event Chain of Survival contains six interdependent links, including: (1) event producers; (2) police and security; (3) festival health; (4) on-site medical services; (5) ambulance services; and (6) off-site medical services. The authors argue that adapting and applying this framework in the context of MPEs in general, and music festivals specifically, has the potential to break down the current disconnected approach to event safety, security, health, and emergency planning. It offers a means of shifting the focus from a purely reactive stance to a more proactive, collaborative, and integrated approach. Improving health outcomes for music festival attendees, reducing gaps in planning, promoting consistency, and improving efficiency by reducing duplication of services will ultimately require coordination and collaboration from the beginning of event production to post-event reporting. LundA , TurrisSA . The Event Chain of Survival in the context of music festivals: a framework for improving outcomes at major planned events . Prehosp Disaster Med . 2017 ; 32 ( 4 ): 1 – 7 . View Show abstract Mortality at Music Festivals: Academic and Grey Literature for Case Finding Article Full-text available * Dec 2016 * Sheila Turris * Adam Lund Objective: Deaths at music festivals are not infrequently reported in the media; however, the true mortality burden is difficult to determine as the deaths are not yet systematically documented in the academic literature. Methods: This was a literature search for case examples using academic and gray literature sources, employing both retrospective and prospective searches of media sources from 1999-2014. Results: The gray literature documents a total of 722 deaths, including traumatic (594/722; 82%) and non-traumatic (128/722; 18%) causes. Fatalities were caused by trampling (n=479), motor-vehicle-related (n=39), structural collapses (n=28), acts of terror (n=26), drowning (n=8), assaults (n=6), falls (n=5), hanging (n=2), and thermal injury (n=2). Non-traumatic deaths included overdoses (n=96/722; 13%), environmental causes (n=8/722; 1%), natural causes (n=10/722; 1%), and unknown/not reported (n=14/722; 2%). The majority of non-trauma-related deaths were related to overdose (75%). The academic literature documents trauma-related deaths (n=368) and overdose-related deaths (n=12). One hundred percent of the trauma-related deaths reported in the academic literature also were reported in the gray literature (n=368). Mortality rates cannot be reported as the total attendance at events is not known. Conclusions: The methodology presented in this manuscript confirms that deaths occur not uncommonly at music festivals, and it represents a starting point in the documentation and surveillance of mortality. Turris SA , Lund A . Mortality at music festivals: academic and grey literature for case finding. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2017;32(1):1 6. View Show abstract Risk and Hazard Management for Festivals and Events Book * Sep 2017 * Peter Wynn-Moylan View Egress design solutions- a guide to evacuation and crowd management planning Book * Jan 2007 * J.S. Tubbs * Brian J. Meacham The book examines egress solutions in terms of both prescriptive and performance-based code issues. A portion of the book focuses on techniques for providing egress design solutions and for coordinating egress systems with other critical life safety systems. Another part reviews historic and recent tragic life-loss fire events. As such, this is easily the most comprehensive take on the subject, written especially for architects. View Show abstract Protecting Your Events and Preparing for Uncertainty * Oct 2019 * P Ashwin Ashwin, P. (2019). Protecting Your Events and Preparing for Uncertainty. SportsTravel Magazine : Oct 7, 2019. www.sportstravelmagazine.com. Fyre Festival Expectations vs Reality * Jan 2019 * Mary Hanbury Hanbury, Mary (2019). Fyre Festival Expectations vs Reality. Business Insider : Jan 20, 2019. www.businessinsider.com. Victims know they can call us' -Cannes sexual harassment hotline up and running. The Guardian * May 2018 * G Mumford Mumford, G. (2018). 'Victims know they can call us' -Cannes sexual harassment hotline up and running. The Guardian : May 11, 2018. www.theguardian.com. Sounds of Summer 2016: A Snapshot of Music Festival Fans. Nielsen. www.nielsen.com RECOMMENDED PUBLICATIONS Discover more Technical Report Full-text available EVENT SAFETY AND SECURITY RISK UPDATE: STAMPEDES AND CROWD SURGES BY PETER ASHWIN & GIOVANNI PISAPIA... October 2018 * Peter Ashwin * Giovanni Pisapia An overview and critical analysis of the causal factors and responses to uncontrolled, crowd surges (stampedes) within recent high profile public events within crowded spaces. View full-text Chapter Full-text available THE INFLUENCE OF RISK PERCEPTION ON EVENT RISK MANAGEMENT AND DECISION MAKING June 2020 * Peter Ashwin It is sometimes said that risk management is too subjective. To what extent is this true and what are the implications for event organizers? This paper will critically analyze whether risk management within the events industry is too subjective and if subjectivity positively or negatively influences the effectiveness of decision making. First, the inter-connected concepts of risk management, ... [Show full abstract] uncertainty and subjectivity must be defined to form the basis to explore whether risk management is rational and objective or conversely, subjective. Second, the theoretical perspectives underpinning risk perception will be analyzed to explore how these socio-cultural perspectives may influence whether a rational or subjective approach to risk management is more effective for event organizers. Third, a critical analysis of whether the effectiveness and credibility of risk-based decisions by event organizers is positively or negatively influenced by their perception of risk and their organizational culture. Fourth, the notion of risk-based decision making by event organizers will be examined to identify how event organizers identify with and respond to risk within today’s global risk society (Beck, 2006). Finally, it will be noted that despite the gaps in evidence and literature on event risk management (Khir, 2014 and Robson, 2009), this essay will argue that the risk management approach adopted by event organizers is primarily subjective; however, this approach does not negatively impact their decision making ability under ambiguous conditions. View full-text Chapter Full-text available FROM RISK TO RESILIENCE: CONTEMPORARY ISSUES IN EVENT RISK MANAGEMENT (PETER ASHWIN) April 2021 * Peter Ashwin In today’s volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous global risk society, event organizers and event professionals find themselves planning and delivering festivals and events in a dynamic environment characterized by the disruptive effects of the covid-19 pandemic and extant risks from homegrown violent extremism, cyber-criminal threats, supply chain disruptions and event cancellations (Hall, ... [Show full abstract] 2018; Piekarz et al, 2015; Reid and Ritchie,2011; Rutherford Silvers, 2008; Tarlow, 2002, Beck, 1999). Drawing upon the existing body of literature for event risk management, from Berlonghi (1990) to a recent 2019 industry survey on event risk management practices (Ashwin and Wilson, 2020), this chapter explores contemporary risk issues in today’s volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous world. The first section of the chapter delves into the inter-related risk constructs for the socio-cultural theoretical perspectives of risk, focusing on how an event organizers perception of risk influence their approach to risk management and decision- making? The second section of the chapter then goes on to explore in depth, two contemporary, high impact organizational and security risks: first, the cyber-criminal threat to event digital eco- systems; and second, domestic terrorism, the evolving threat from homegrown violent extremists, domestic violent extremists and ‘lone wolves. Following on, new perspectives and insights into risk mitigation and event resilience are outlined; the utilization of situational crime prevention, an evidence-based criminology perspective and other ‘real world’ opportunities for event organizers to enhance event team preparedness and resilience to adversity and uncertainty. View full-text Article Full-text available MEDICAL CARE AT A MASS GATHERING MUSIC FESTIVAL RETROSPECTIVE STUDY OVER 7 YEARS (2011-2017) April 2021 · Wiener klinische Wochenschrift * Mathias Maleczek * Simon Rubi * Christian Fohringer * [...] * Andreas Duma Background: Knowledge about longitudinal changes in epidemiological data at mass gathering events is sparse. The goal of this study was to determine and compare the type, severity and frequency of illnesses at a large music festival over 7 consecutive years (2011-2017). Methods: Prospectively collected data from the rescue operation protocols of an Austrian music festival were retrieved and ... [Show full abstract] analyzed. Patient presentation rates (PPR) and transport to hospital rates (TTHR) were calculated and compared between years. Linear regression was used to investigate the association between (a) total number of visitors and number of patient presentations, and (b) environmental factors and temperature related medical emergencies. A descriptive analysis of pertinent medical logistics management was performed. Results: The median (minimum to maximum) PPR and TTHR were 12.01 (9.33 in 2016 to 20.86 in 2011) and 0.57 (0.40 in 2017 to 1.06 in 2013) per 1000 visitors, respectively. In linear regression models, no significant associations were found between the number of visitors and either the total number of patient presentations, NACA 1-2 or NACA 3-5 classified emergencies. Environmental temperature had a significant impact on heat related patient presentations (p < 0.001). Conclusion: There were significant differences and a high variance in both PPR and TTHR over the years. Contrary to our expectations, the number of visitors did not predict the number of patient presentations. Ambient temperature was associated with the number of heat related emergencies but not with the number of cold related emergencies. Prevention strategies, such as the removal of insect nests, resulted in significantly fewer insect related emergencies. View full-text Discover the world's research Join ResearchGate to find the people and research you need to help your work. Join for free ResearchGate iOS App Get it from the App Store now. Install Keep up with your stats and more Access scientific knowledge from anywhere or Discover by subject area * Recruit researchers * Join for free * Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login PasswordForgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login PasswordForgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up Company About us News Careers Support Help Center Business solutions Advertising Recruiting © 2008-2024 ResearchGate GmbH. All rights reserved. * Terms * Privacy * Copyright * Imprint * Consent preferences We and our partners use cookies✕ By using this site, you consent to the processing of your personal data, the storing of cookies on your device, and the use of similar technologies for personalization, ads, analytics, etc. For more information or to opt out, see our Privacy Policy