DURING MY time as a Hosted Buyer Qualifier, I reviewed a wide range of applications that appeared credible at first glance but revealed significant issues when subjected to closer scrutiny.
The following examples illustrate why independent due diligence remains a critical component of maintaining the quality and credibility of hosted-buyer programmes, whether part of exhibitions, familiarisation trips or study missions.
There are many ways to qualify a hosted buyer, and the process goes well beyond checking that all mandatory requirements have been submitted. Once the basics are in place, I cross-check whether the information meets the required criteria, starting with whether everything has been accurately and completely filled in. From there, I use a range of tools to verify the background of each applicant.
A particularly effective way I’ve found is reaching out to a mutual connection. In my experience, people within the industry are genuinely willing to help, and the additional context they can provide about an individual is often exactly what’s needed to reach a well-informed decision.
Applicants who do not satisfy the credibility standards will be recommended for rejection, This ensures that programme opportunities remain reserved for organisations who can demonstrate genuine and verifiable industry engagement. Here are two case studies for illustration:
CASE 1
Background
During one project, I received an application from an international association. Let’s call it the International X Organisation of X (IXOX) for confidentiality purposes.
The application was professionally presented and appeared to meet all qualification requirements. The applicant provided information relating to past and future events, meeting sizes, and organisational activities. However, routine due diligence revealed several inconsistencies.
1/ Use of a Non-Corporate Email
While not conclusive on its own, this was unusual for a representative claiming to act on behalf of an international association, where professionally managed domains would normally be expected.
2/ Lack of Verifiable Organisational Presence
Additional research failed to identify reliable evidence that IXOX was actively operating.
3/ Absence of Recent Event Activity
The most recent recorded IXOX event dated back to 2017, with no evidence of subsequent activity. For an organisation claiming ongoing operations, this gap raised further questions regarding its current status.
4/ Questionable References
The applicant provided two industry references which used the same generic email provider as the applicant. While this did not prove the references were invalid, it reduced confidence in their independence.
5/ Unverified External Affiliations
Further research uncovered an article in which the applicant identified himself as a board member of another organisation, referred to here as the World Organisation of XXX (Let’s call them WOOX).
Despite extensive searches, I was unable to find evidence that WOOX was an active organisation. At this stage, a consistent pattern emerged: multiple organisations, affiliations, and contacts that could not be independently verified.
Outcome
Viewed collectively, these findings significantly reduced confidence in the legitimacy of the application.
CASE 2
Background
Another case involved an incentive travel hopeful whose previous application had been declined due to insufficient supporting documentation.
So a subsequent application was submitted. Although the resubmission suggested greater engagement with the process, a closer review revealed several inconsistencies:
1/ Limited Supporting Evidence
Social media content focused primarily on local tours and personal travel experiences, while little information was available regarding larger outbound incentive programmes.
2/ Reference Discrepancies
Following several requests, the applicant provided a number of contacts for verification. Two issues became apparent:
• One reference related to an incentive group supposedly hosted by a Dubai hotel in 2022. However, the individual listed as the contact only joined the hotel in October 2024, making it impossible for them to verify an event from 2022.
• A second reference connected to a 2023 programme in Greece could not be independently verified using the information supplied.
These inconsistencies raised questions about the reliability of the supporting evidence. Sometimes, the information that surfaced after further research directly conflicted with the information provided by the applicant. Taken together, these findings significantly reduced confidence in the accuracy of the submission.
Outcome
After reviewing all available evidence, I concluded that the applicant did not meet the qualification requirements of the hosted buyer programme. I recommended rejection due to the inability to verify key business activities and the presence of multiple unresolved discrepancies.
Qualification Process:
The decisions made helped ensure that limited hosted-buyer places remained available to applicants able to demonstrate legitimate and verifiable industry activity. When I conduct a qualification process, the following are considered:
– Due diligence and verification
– Reference validation
– Investigative research
– Risk assessment
– Evidence-based decision-making
– Stakeholder protection
These two cases show that effective hosted-buyer qualification goes well beyond reviewing what applicants submit. It requires independent verification, critical thinking, and the confidence to question information that cannot be substantiated.
A well-presented application is not necessarily a reliable one. The most significant issues only became visible through independent research and systematic cross-checking. It reinforced the importance of assessing evidence in addition to the information supplied by applicants.
Not all risks are immediately apparent. In some cases, the key issues only emerged through persistent follow-up, independent enquiries, and careful examination of supporting information.
The strength of a qualification process depends not only on the information applicants provide, but also on the extent to which that information can be independently verified.
A consistent due diligence process protects everyone with a stake in the programme – exhibitors, organisers, and genuine buyers alike. But perhaps most importantly, it ensures that the opportunities offered by hosted-buyer programmes are allocated to the right people.
In both case studies, the greatest risks were not found in what applicants disclosed, but in what careful verification revealed.
Sebastian Sew is a project manager with business events and convention bureau consultancy GainingEdge. This article first appeared in the GainingInsights series
