US dataswitch to UK
Meeting, Convention, and Event Planners
consulting with customers to determine objectives and requirements, monitoring event activities to ensure compliance with applicable regulations and laws and negotiating contracts with such service providers and suppliers as hotels. If that's your week, this page is about your job.
The honest answer
This job is splitting in two: maintaining records of event aspects is work AI now does quickly and cheaply, and conferring with staff at a chosen event site to coordinate details is work it can't touch.
Which half fills your week decides your exposure. The ledger below shows which rows you can move toward.
Your week, as this page understands it
Coordinate activities of staff, convention personnel, or clients to make arrangements for group meetings, events, or conventions. The job title says “meeting”, “convention” or “event planners”: officially one job, several names. The real job is the part underneath: conferring with staff at a chosen event site to coordinate details. That is the thing someone has to be right about.
The exposed part of this job is specific, and we won’t pretend it is coming back. But meeting, convention, and event planners is not one task. It is 21 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is conferring with staff at a chosen event site to coordinate details, and the ledger below shows exactly why.
Where the work sits, by task weight
- shifting to AI
- 40%
- changing shape
- 17%
- staying human
- 43%
These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.
Whole-job exposure score 46 out of 100 (40–52 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, across 21 scored tasks. The number is the support for the sentence above it, not a headline about anyone’s future.
How we know this
What is measured: Every published task statement for meeting, convention, and event planners is rated on five dimensions: can a model produce the output, does the work need a body in a room, does it need a legally accountable person, does it depend on a person being trusted in the moment, and how much data exists. A published formula turns those five ratings into the score; the model never writes the number.
How the bar is built: Each task’s share of the bar is its published importance weight, so a task you do all day counts for more than one you do twice a year.
Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-04. Read the full method.
Your job, task by task
These are the official task statements for this occupation, in plain English, sorted by what the evidence says is happening to each one. The official wording sits under every line so you can check the rewrite against it.
- 1 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
- Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.
Shifting to AI
9 tasksTasks today’s tools can already do most of. This is the part we will not soften: where these rows are the bulk of your week, the week changes.
Reviewing event bills for accuracy and approving payment
This is reading one thing and writing another: event bills in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Review event bills for accuracy and approve payment.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (62–70 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Checking invoices against agreed rates and contracts is routine document work software handles well, with a person approving the final payment.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Maintaining records of event aspects
This is reading one thing and writing another: records of event aspects in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Maintain records of event aspects, including financial details.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 93 out of 100 (89–97 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Keeping event records and financial details up to date is straightforward record-keeping that software already does well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Conducting post-event evaluations to determine how future events
This is reading one thing and writing another: post-event evaluations in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Conduct post-event evaluations to determine how future events could be improved.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (71–79 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Pulling together feedback and figures after an event into lessons for next time is standard analysis and write-up work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Evaluating and selecting providers of services according to customer requirements
This is reading one thing and writing another: providers of services in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Evaluate and select providers of services according to customer requirements.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (60–68 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Comparing providers against customer requirements is structured analysis, with the final choice discussed.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Changing shape
3 tasksTasks where the machine takes the producing and a person keeps the checking, the deciding, or the answering-for-it. For most jobs this is the biggest group, and it is where "transformation, not termination" is literally visible.
Consulting with customers to determine objectives and requirements
The software now makes the first pass at customers, but the part that matters is a person saying it and standing behind it. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Consult with customers to determine objectives and requirements for events, such as meetings, conferences, and conventions.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 40 out of 100 (33–47 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Working out what a client wants from their event still depends on a back-and-forth conversation, though software can draft questions and write up requirements.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Arranging the availability of audio-visual equipment
The software now makes the first pass at the availability of audio-visual equipment, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Arrange the availability of audio-visual equipment, transportation, displays, and other event needs.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 48 out of 100 (41–55 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Arranging equipment and transport is largely ordering and scheduling against a known list, which software does reliably.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Reading trade publications, attend seminars and consulting with other meeting professionals to keep abreast of meeting management standards and trends
The software now makes the first pass at trade publications, attend seminars, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Read trade publications, attend seminars, and consult with other meeting professionals to keep abreast of meeting management standards and trends.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 48 out of 100 (41–55 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Keeping up with industry publications and trends is reading and summarizing, which software does fast, though seminars are attended in person.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Staying human
9 tasksTasks that stay with a person, because they happen in the physical world, because the rules need someone accountable, or because the value is that a specific person does them.
Conferring with staff at a chosen event site to coordinate details
This work happens in the physical world: staff, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Confer with staff at a chosen event site to coordinate details.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 11 out of 100 (7–15 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Walking a venue with its staff to settle details depends on being there and reading the room together.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Inspecting event facilities to ensure that they conform to customer requirements
The ratings behind this row put event facilities well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Inspect event facilities to ensure that they conform to customer requirements.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 24 out of 100 (20–28 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the five ratings behind the score, with no single dominant reason.
The rating behind it: Checking a venue really matches what the client asked for means walking the space and looking at it yourself.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Coordinating services for events, such as accommodation and transportation for participants, facilities, catering, signage, displays
The ratings behind this row put services well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Coordinate services for events, such as accommodation and transportation for participants, facilities, catering, signage, displays, special needs requirements, printing and event security.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 37 out of 100 (30–44 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Booking and chasing suppliers is mostly email and scheduling, but someone still has to make judgment calls when plans change.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Show the other 11 tasks
Planning and developing programs, agendas, budgets and services according to customer requirements
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: programs, agendas, budgets and services in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Plan and develop programs, agendas, budgets, and services according to customer requirements.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (71–79 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Programs, agendas and budgets are documents built from a brief, and software produces solid first drafts of all three.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Organizing registration of event participants
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: registration of event participants in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Organize registration of event participants.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 69 out of 100 (62–76 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Registration already runs on software, so setting it up and managing sign-ups is highly automatable apart from the desk on the day.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Directing administrative details, such as financial operations, dissemination of promotional materials and responses to inquiries
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: administrative details in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Direct administrative details, such as financial operations, dissemination of promotional materials, and responses to inquiries.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (57–71 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Running the administrative side, from invoices to mailouts and replies to inquiries, is mostly routine desk work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Designing and implementing efforts to publicize events and promoting sponsorships
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: efforts in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Design and implement efforts to publicize events and promote sponsorships.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (57–71 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Publicity plans, copy and sponsorship pitches are content and campaign work that software drafts to a usable standard.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing event topics and choosing featured speakers
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: event topics in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Develop event topics and choose featured speakers.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (57–71 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Suggesting topics and shortlisting speakers is research and idea generation, an area where software produces usable options quickly.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Obtaining permits from fire and health departments to erect displays and exhibits and serve food at events
staying humanThe ratings behind this row put permits well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Obtain permits from fire and health departments to erect displays and exhibits and serve food at events.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 38 out of 100 (31–45 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Permit applications are forms built from known details, though fire and health departments decide and site visits sometimes apply.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Negotiating contracts with such service providers and suppliers as hotels
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles contracts and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Negotiate contracts with such service providers and suppliers as hotels, convention centers, and speakers.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 35 out of 100 (28–42 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Software can prepare terms and benchmark prices, but hotels and speakers still negotiate with a person who can trade concessions.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Promoting conference, convention and trades show services by performing tasks
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles conference, convention and trades show services and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Promote conference, convention and trades show services by performing tasks such as meeting with professional and trade associations, and producing brochures and other publications.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 30 out of 100 (23–37 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Brochures and promotional copy can be drafted automatically, but meeting trade associations to win business still involves people.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Meeting with sponsors and organizing committees to plan scope and format of events
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles sponsors and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Meet with sponsors and organizing committees to plan scope and format of events, to establish and monitor budgets, or to review administrative procedures and event progress.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 26 out of 100 (19–33 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Sponsor and committee meetings turn on live discussion and agreement, though the budgets and papers behind them can be prepared automatically.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Hiring, training and supervising volunteers and supporting staff required for events
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: volunteers, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Hire, train, and supervise volunteers and support staff required for events.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 11 out of 100 (4–18 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Hiring, training and directing event staff on the day depends on being with them and building working relationships.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Monitoring event activities to ensure compliance with applicable regulations and laws
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: event activities, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Monitor event activities to ensure compliance with applicable regulations and laws, satisfaction of participants, and resolution of any problems that arise.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 6 out of 100 (2–10 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Watching an event unfold and fixing problems as they happen needs someone on the floor at the time.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
What this job pays, and how many people do it
- Median pay
- $61,160a year, the middle of the range, so half earn more and half earn less.bls-oews, 2025 · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
How we know this
Source: bls-oews
Reference period: May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
Rounding: Shown as published.
- People doing this job
- 142,860in the US, 2025.bls-oews · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
What is deliberately not here: a forecast of how many of these jobs exist in ten years. Where an official projection exists for a market we publish it with its vintage; where it does not, we leave the space empty rather than borrow the other country’s number.
Why this is shifting
The reason is boringly specific. Most of what is shifting here is reading one thing and writing another: records of event aspects in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: maintaining records of event aspects and reviewing event bills for accuracy and approving payment. What it cannot do is be there in the room, and that is still where staff gets done. Which is why this page talks about your tasks changing, not your job ending.
Your move
Over a pint: what I’d tell you if you were my friend
Your week is splitting in two, and which half fills it is the whole question. Maintaining records of event aspects is going; conferring with staff at a chosen event site to coordinate details is not.
So, given all that: 40% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 17% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 43% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 21 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.
The occupation is an average and you are not, so the first job below is finding out where your own week actually sits.
This week: one thing
Print the task ledger above and put your own hours next to each row. Roughly, in pen, in one sitting. Then look at which group your hours actually pile up in. Twenty minutes, this week.
- What you end up holding
- your own week, on one page, sorted into what is shifting and what is not
- How long it takes
- about twenty minutes
If printing it isn’t practical: Read the rows off this page and write the same list on the back of an envelope. Same twenty minutes, same page, and it works just as well said out loud to someone who knows the job. The point is your hours next to the rows, not the paper it is on.
Over the next 90 days
Volunteer toward the durable end, visibly. Over the next ninety days put your hand up for the work in the bottom group (conferring with staff at a chosen event site to coordinate details) and let people see you doing it. Not a new project: the same job, with your mix deliberately tilted. The point is that when the rota or the reorganisation comes, the version of you people picture is the one doing the part that stays.
Over the next 12 months
Claim a specialism at the durable end and let the other end go. Over a year, deliberately become the person who handles conferring with staff at a chosen event site to coordinate details, and deliberately stop being the first choice for the rows in the top group. That trade costs something, because the exposed work is often the comfortable work. Decide it on purpose rather than by drift. Before you pay for anything, use CareerOneStop - Find local training. It is free, it is the Labor Department's own service, and it is listed below with the rest of the free routes.
The roads out of here, and why I am not sending you down them
I looked at the obvious moves out of this job, and here is what I found.
I checked the 12 nearest US occupations to meeting, convention, and event planners (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was fundraisers: only about 7% of its durable work is work you already do. Your own job splits about 40/60: that share of the list sits in the top exposure band and the rest does not. On this evidence the honest move is inside the job rather than out of it. Become the person who owns “consult with customers to determine objectives and requirements for events”, and let the exposed end go.
How that was checked: this job was compared against all 830 US occupations in this release on their official task statements, and the 12 nearest were examined one by one. A move that turns on an industry, an employer or a qualification rather than on the work itself will not show up in a check like that. And this release carries no licence register, so anything you are weighing needs that looked up separately.
3 moves I checked and rejected
These are the obvious-looking jumps. They are here with their reasons rather than quietly dropped, because the ones that fail are worth knowing about. It is one less thing to turn over at night.
Fundraisers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already hire, train, and supervise volunteers and support staff required for events, and their equivalent is to direct or supervise fundraising staff. Across both published task lists that is about 7% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 7% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step.
Broadcast Announcers and Radio Disc Jockeys
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already consult with customers to determine objectives and requirements for events, and their equivalent is to provide commentary and conduct interviews during sporting events, parades, conventions, or other events. Across both published task lists that is about 3% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 3% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: $47,340 against your $61,160, 22.6% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice. And it is a narrow door: about 21,240 of those jobs against 142,860 of yours (OEWS May 2025), 15% as many seats.
Curators
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already hire, train, and supervise volunteers and support staff required for events, and their equivalent is to train and supervise curatorial, fiscal, technical, research, and clerical staff, as well as…. Across both published task lists that is about 2% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 2% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. And it is a narrow door: about 12,150 of those jobs against 142,860 of yours (OEWS May 2025), 9% as many seats.
What I’d stop worrying about
A friend tells you what not to spend fear on. This is that list.
The headline number you read somewhere
The big “X% of jobs” figures are about the whole economy, not about you. The number that describes your job is on this page: 40% of its task weight, across 21 scored tasks. Every row behind it is printed above with the source. Check ours; ignore theirs.
The whole-job doom story
Nothing on this page says this job ends. It says the mix inside it moves. Half the rows above are unchanged or changing shape, and the plan is about which half your week sits in. That is a very different problem, and a solvable one.
Panic-buying a course
Do the twenty-minute sorting exercise first. Most people who buy a course before they have done it buy the wrong one, and the free services listed below will tell you the same thing without charging for it.
The “obvious” next job everyone suggests
I checked the obvious moves and most of them did not survive. The reasons are printed with the routes above, including the pay and the gate. A move that fails on the numbers is worth knowing about so you can stop turning it over at night.
You are reading the United States figures
The United Kingdom splits this work across more than one official group, of which Events managers and organisers is the closest. The pay and employment figures are not directly comparable, and we do not average them together.
Switch to the United Kingdom page →partial match
The other groups this work is counted across:
In UK official statistics this job is counted as Events managers and organisers and Functional managers and directors n.e.c.. Pay is shown separately for each of those groups (medians cannot be averaged together), while the task list and the scores on this page are for this group only.
Your route through this
Where to go next, and what it costs
Free, and complete
The moves above cost nothing. These are the real services that go with them: public, government-funded, and free at the point of use. Nothing on this page is behind an email address or a payment.
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Find local training
Search what's running near you, from the Labor Department's own database, before anyone sells you a course.
Free to search; individual programs vary, and some are funded
Anywhere in the US:
An American Job Center will sit down with you for free. Find yours by ZIP code.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Licensed occupations finder
Check what your state actually requires before you pay for anything.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
Free
No Space for this job, but one for what is happening to it
Nothing Collab365 runs is built for meeting / convention / event planners, and we are not going to point you at the nearest one and call it a fit.
There is one that is not about a job title at all. The AI Authority is about being the person who directs these tools at work rather than the person they get compared to. That is worth saying here, because 40% of the work on this page is already inside what they can do.
7 days free, no card needed. Explore up to 2 Spaces before you choose a plan: you pick a plan later, not now.
The AI Authority is a general community about working with AI, not a course for meeting / convention / event planners. You do not need it to act on anything here: the moves above cost nothing and stand on their own. The data on this page is the same either way.
Noted, and thank you. We’ll email you if a Space for meeting / convention / event planners launches. Nothing else.
That did not look like an email address, so nothing was saved. Have another go below.
We could not save that. The fault is ours, not yours, and your address was not stored. Please try again later.
No deadline on any of this. The page will still be here, and the data is refreshed on a published schedule rather than when someone wants a headline.
Questions people ask about this job
- Will AI replace Meeting, Convention, and Event Planners?
- Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 21 official task statements scored for Meeting, Convention, and Event Planners (United States, SOC 13-1121), 40% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 46 out of 100 (range 40–52, band: partial). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.
- Which tasks in “Meeting, Convention, and Event Planners” can AI already do?
- The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Maintain records of event aspects, including financial details” (93/100, very high); “Plan and develop programs, agendas, budgets, and services according to customer requirements” (75/100, high); “Conduct post-event evaluations to determine how future events could be improved” (75/100, high). Each score comes from five published 0–4 ratings turned into a number by a published formula, and each carries the model's one-sentence reason on the page.
- Which tasks in “Meeting, Convention, and Event Planners” stay human?
- About 43% of this job's task weight sits in work that scores low for AI exposure. The lowest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Monitor event activities to ensure compliance with applicable regulations and laws, satisfaction of participants, and resolution of any problems that arise” (6/100, minimal); “Hire, train, and supervise volunteers and support staff required for events” (11/100, minimal); “Confer with staff at a chosen event site to coordinate details” (11/100, minimal). Low scores usually mean the task needs a body in a room, a legally accountable human, or trust built in real time. Those are the three things the scoring rubric treats as gates rather than obstacles.
- What should someone working in “Meeting, Convention, and Event Planners” do about AI?
- Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 40% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 43% is not. The practical move is to spend more of your week on the tasks that score low, the ones above, and to get fluent at directing AI through the tasks that score high, because those are the parts that change whether or not you are ready for them. This page does not predict your job, and nothing here is career advice tailored to you: the score describes the occupation, not the person.
- How is the AI exposure score for Meeting, Convention, and Event Planners calculated?
- Each official task statement for the occupation is rated on five published 0–4 dimensions (output replicability, physical embodiment, licensed accountability, real-time human trust, and data availability) by claude-opus-5 using scoring prompt task_scoring_v1.0. The model never writes the score; a published formula turns the five ratings into a 0–100 number, so every score can be recomputed by hand. The occupation figure is the importance-weighted mean across 21 scored tasks. The prompt, the rubric, the formula and the full dataset are published at https://futureproof.collab365.com/method and https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1 under CC BY 4.0.
Where these numbers come from
Worth knowing about these figures
- The match between this job and its counterpart in the other country is partial, so the two pages count slightly different groups of people.
- 1 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
- Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.
- Task statements
- onet-dbProcessing: catalogue-bridge → onet-im-rt-weighting → task-scoring → score-aggregation
- Task weights
- onet-db (im-rt)
- Scores
- Rubric task_scoring_v1.0, model claude-opus-5, computed 2026-08-04.
- Pay and employment
- bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))
Figures on this page come from release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. Every release keeps its own permanent address, so a figure you cite in March is still there, unchanged, in November.
The plain-English wording on this page is assembled directly from the task statements and the published ratings, not written by hand for this occupation. That is why it is specific, and it is also why we say so.
The routes and free resources further up are today’s, not the release’s (last reviewed 2026-08-05). A route is an offer, not a historical fact, so it moves on its own clock.
Using these figures?
Cite this
Everything on this site is published under CC BY 4.0. Quote it, chart it, sell something built on it. Just say where it came from, and cite the dated release rather than the site, so the figure you quote stays checkable.
Plain text
Collab365 (2026). Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1 (methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0). https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1. Licensed CC BY 4.0. Built with O*NET data (USDOL/ETA, CC BY 4.0); ONS data (Open Government Licence v3.0); GAISI task framework (arXiv:2507.22748, MIT); BLS data (public domain).
BibTeX
@misc{collab365futureproof2026q41,
title = {Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1},
author = {{Collab365}},
year = {2026},
url = {https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1},
note = {Release 2026-q4.1, methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0, CC BY 4.0}
}Data as of release 2026-q4.1, published . Releases never change after publication; when the figures move, a new dated release is published beside this one and this one stays exactly where it is.