A new report from Skift Meetings, produced in partnership with MPI, takes the temperature of corporate meeting planners in 2026. Based on a survey of 111 in-house corporate event professionals, Corporate Meetings in 2026 explores a familiar but increasingly complex set of pressures: rising costs, geopolitical uncertainty, greater expectations around ROI, staffing challenges and changing attendee expectations.
The research isn’t specifically about incentive travel. But for planners responsible for incentive programs, many of its findings feel particularly relevant.
Incentive travel operates within the same economic and geopolitical environment as the wider meetings industry, while carrying some distinct considerations of its own. Destination appeal matters differently. Expectations around experience are exceptionally high. And because an incentive trip represents both a significant investment and a reward for performance, demonstrating its value matters.
So, what happens when we look at some of the report’s findings through an incentive travel lens?
Destination decisions are becoming more complex
Geopolitical risk tops Skift Meetings’ list of forces expected to influence corporate meetings over the next 12–24 months.
More than a quarter of respondents, 26%, said they had cancelled, postponed or relocated an event in the previous two years because of leadership concerns about a destination. Cost and currency fluctuations and safety or unrest were each cited by 24%, while political climate, conflict and visa or entry friction also influenced decisions.
For incentive travel planners, those considerations can be amplified by the role the destination plays in the program itself. An incentive destination isn’t simply somewhere with sufficient meeting/event space and airlift. Its desirability, perception, accessibility and ability to deliver an extraordinary experience all contribute to the motivational power of the reward.
Interestingly, 46% of corporate planners say they are sourcing more domestically than last year, while 33% are sourcing more regionally than nationally.
For incentive planners, the challenge is balancing risk mitigation with the aspiration and discovery that make incentive travel special. That doesn’t necessarily mean travelling farther. SITE/Maritz research suggests that novelty may matter more than distance: first-time destinations were associated with stronger scores for feeling valued, motivation to win again and the sense of having a life-expanding experience.
The question isn’t simply what did it cost, but what did it achieve?
Another major theme in the Skift Meetings report is ROI.
Traditional measures still dominate corporate events. Twenty-nine percent of respondents primarily measure ROI through pipeline or leads influenced, 20% use satisfaction or NPS and 18% use attendance or registration. Fifteen percent say they don’t systematically track ROI at all.
But perhaps the more interesting question is: what changed because people came together? Did relationships deepen? Did teams become more engaged? Did new opportunities emerge?
For incentive travel, that question is especially powerful.
The value of an incentive program can’t necessarily be captured by asking whether participants enjoyed the hotel or would recommend the destination. More important questions relate to why the program existed in the first place: Did it motivate performance? Strengthen loyalty? Increase connection to the organization? Create memories and emotional ties that last beyond the trip?
SITE’s own research reinforces this point. The 2026 SITE/Maritz study found that 89% of respondents felt stronger loyalty to the sponsoring company after winning a trip, 89% said they were more likely to stay in their job and 93% were eager to win again.
For incentive planners, the opportunity may be to measure more of these longer-term effects, not simply whether the trip was enjoyed.
Cost pressure makes intentional design more important
Seventy-nine percent of respondents have experienced year-over-year cost increases of at least 5%, while 47% are operating with flat budgets and 19% have seen budgets reduced.
Yet the report doesn’t suggest organizations simply want to stop bringing people together. Instead, the emphasis is shifting toward getting more value from the investment. As the report puts it, organizations are “not cutting business events; they are cutting excess,” protecting spend that contributes to engagement, networking, learning, relationship-building and attendee value.
That’s an important distinction for incentive travel.
A pressured budget doesn’t automatically have to mean a diminished experience. It can force greater clarity around what actually creates impact. What will the participant remember six months later? Which experience could only have happened in this destination? Where does personalization genuinely add value?
SITE/Maritz research adds another dimension. When incentive qualifiers were asked what group travel means to them, the number one response wasn’t relaxation or adventure. It was a feeling of achievement, cited by 54% of respondents. Recognition from leaders, sharing the reward with someone and connection with peers also featured strongly.
That is an important reminder when budgets are under pressure. The value of an incentive isn’t necessarily created by adding another expensive experience. It also comes from how successfully the program makes qualifiers feel recognized, valued and connected to the achievement that brought them there.
Connection needs space
The Skift Meetings report points toward smaller, more intentional gatherings and greater demand for experiences that facilitate genuine connection.
For incentive travel, this isn’t an entirely new idea. Some of the most memorable moments on a program happen outside the formal itinerary: over breakfast, on a transfer, during an unexpected encounter in the destination or simply when participants are given time to enjoy being somewhere extraordinary together.
SITE/Maritz research supports the importance of those connections. Among respondents reflecting on their most recent group travel experience, 93% said they valued their connections with other winners.
For planners, the implication is simple: more programming doesn’t necessarily create more value. Protecting the time and space in which relationships form can be part of the experience design itself.
When circumstances change, judgment matters
One of the report’s most directly incentive-related moments comes in its discussion of crisis management. Reflecting on the aftermath of the Maui fires, one planner recalls the question: is it appropriate to bring an incentive trip there now?
A destination may be operational while parts of its community are still recovering. Tourism may be economically important to that recovery, while visitors also need to behave with sensitivity.
There isn’t a universal formula for those decisions. That’s where the expertise of incentive travel professionals, and particularly trusted local partners, becomes critical. Understanding what is happening on the ground, listening to local communities and balancing duty of care with economic and social impact requires human judgment.
The common thread: intentionality
The findings in Corporate Meetings in 2026 point toward an industry being asked to demonstrate greater value while navigating greater complexity.
For incentive travel professionals, the same pressures may ultimately reinforce what makes well-designed incentive travel powerful in the first place.
Destination decisions need to be more considered. Experiences need to be more intentional. Budgets need to be connected to outcomes. And the value of bringing people together needs to be articulated in terms that extend beyond satisfaction scores, toward achievement, connection, loyalty and lasting motivation.
Perhaps the question for incentive planners in 2027 and beyond isn’t simply, “How do we deliver the same program in a more challenging environment?”
It’s “What are we trying to make happen, and how can travel uniquely help us achieve it?”
