Insight
Lessons on qualifying hosted buyers
GAININGEDGE PROJECT MANAGER SEBASTIAN SEW SHARES TWO CASE STUDIES
D uring 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 role I played required attention to detail, critical thinking, and the ability to assess potential risks objectively. 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.
How qualification works in practice 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 crosscheck 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 particular 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.
In the process of qualifying applications, those that do not satisfy the credibility standards required for participation in the hosted buyer programme will be recommended for
Above: Sebastian Sew
rejection, This process ensures that programme opportunities remain reserved for organisations that 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, which I will refer to as 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 a number of inconsistencies that warranted further investigation.
Investigation and findings 1. Non-corporate email usage 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
48 / CONFERENCE & MEETINGS WORLD / ISSUE 143