Pictured: one of the blog pages linked from the blacklist that was emailed out on Monday, which is an entire page devoted to one alleged scammer
Industry
professionals have divided over the circulation of a 'name and shame' list of
alleged scammer event attendees, as the anonymous authors behind it say
"we've done our job".
Reactions to
the controversial list are varied, with some events professionals saying it was
time to "root these fraudsters out" while others call it 'unprofessional', arguing it is the organiser's responsibility to properly screen attendees.
The
blacklist in question was distributed on Monday from a Gmail account, and lists
in detail the characteristics, contact details and attendance history of 31
people alleged to have no valuable connection to the events industry. The list
was emailed to attendees of the Association Meetings Conference, prompting
conference hosts to quickly stress they had nothing to do with it.
Speaking
with M&IT, one of the authors of the list said: "If it's [sic] kickstarted a
debate and will make some people think twice before attending events, then
we've done our job. This isn't something that can be solved venue by
venue, event by event."
Asked what
the make-up of the authors of the list were, the spokesperson said it was a
mixture "suppliers, some venues, some caterers, photographers, etc".
The spokesperson said research was done face to face with "some of the
largest venues and event agencies, leading hotel chain and conference
organisers" in order to obtain the details of the 31 alleged scammers.
The
spokesperson continued: "Over the past few years, we've been
watching the same folks come to all kinds of events and you cannot help but
"compare notes" even inadvertently. After a
while, patterns emerged, yet nothing seemed to
change. We thought maybe it was because other people didn't know, so
the idea was to try and gather as much information from as many people as
possible (sometimes clandestinely) and then synthesise the results. Some
of it might seem a bit harsh, and the creative names aren't ours, but
if that's how people are known or can easily be described,
then we've kept them. It's not about being mean, but if you strip away all
the "colour" it can be hard to identify the people and then the wrong
people might be identified (it's hppaned) as it can be difficult to
tell by pointing when people are always together or work for the
same organisation. So that's us in a nutshell."
One M&IT
reader commented: "Hosts are responsible for who they invite to
events/fams, if they get their fingers burnt by the odd freeloader it is down
to them to learn from their mistakes and compile a different invite list next
time. Simple."
Another
added: "I recognise that this is a problem sometimes but surely to curb
it, all it takes is a little more vetting of the invite list and a more
rigorous door policy?"
Elena Clowes
from the International Live Events Association (ILEA) called it "v
unprofessional" and Kevin Jackson agreed, adding: "The professional
thing to do would be to check credentials and validate every name."
But support
has also been expressed for the list, with Chetan Shah of Micebook saying:
"I agree it is up to each organisation to vet their attendees but also if
there are some serial fraudsters then it would be good to know…"
Another
anonymous M&IT reader added: "I would love to take a look at that list
and compare it to mine which I have been compiling over the last few years …
let's root these fraudsters out!"