In this case, a European scientific organization that annually holds a large international medical congress was forced to move the venue of its 2025 edition to another European city, as it was impossible to hold the event in the location initially contracted for the scheduled dates. The priority was twofold: guarantee the continuity of the congress without altering the schedule already communicated to the market and, at the same time, build a solid expert base to accredit the damages and justify that the decision adopted was the most reasonable to minimize impacts, including reputational ones.
The reputational component was especially sensitive. In an international congress, a change of dates is usually interpreted as organizational instability and can erode the confidence of attendees, speakers, and sponsors. Therefore, the analysis was not limited to “moving a venue”: it was explicitly evaluated that modifying dates would have increased the risk of lower attendance, higher costs, and reputational damage for the organizing entity, which made that alternative unfeasible compared to relocating the event while maintaining the schedule.
Our methodology was based on documentary verification and expert criteria of independence and traceability: review of the original contract, analysis of real calendar and location alternatives, and construction of a technical reasoning that demonstrated the efforts of damage mitigation and the logic of the final decision. The approach was designed to be defensible and understandable in a contentious environment, based on verifiable facts and objective documentation.
The strategic conclusion was that maintaining dates and relocating the venue was the option that best protected the reputation of the event. The venue finally chosen provided continuity and confidence by having successfully hosted the previous edition, offered immediate availability, adequate capacity, and international connectivity, and —very relevant— conveyed “reputational security” by reducing the perception of improvisation or organizational deterioration before the congress ecosystem.
From there, we quantified in a structured way the economic damage associated with the relocation, with breakdown and documentary support, and connected it with the real impact on the congress market: the reduction of face-to-face attendance and, therefore, of income. The analysis of the lost profit was based on recent historical evolution and on a prudent projection, explaining why the drop in registrations was not justified by external factors, but by the deterrent effect of the new destination compared to the alternative initially planned.
The result was a report especially useful to sustain a strong position, because it not only quantified damages with verifiable evidence, but also accredited that the organization acted diligently, evaluated options, and chose the path that minimized reputational damage and ensured the viability of the event. In practice, this turns a potentially “narrative” problem (reputation) into a defensible technical argument, supported by facts, reasoned decisions, and consistent measurements.