What’s the price tag to be a Davos Man?
Chief executives, government leaders and academics around the world have been in Davos, Switzerland, for the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting this week — a heady power gathering that mixes business, politics and champagne in the Swiss Alps. It is an event that draws a wide range of decisionmakers, from JPMorgan Chase chief executive Jamie Dimon to Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou to U2’s Bono, ostensibly to contemplate how to solve the world’s problems.
Of course, much of the week is really about one thing: networking. As the Black Swan author Nassim Taleb described it to Tom Keene of Bloomberg Television, the event is “chasing successful people who want to be seen with other successful people. That’s the game.”
An invitation to the meeting is supposed to be considered an exclusive honor, but for corporate executives, the cost of being a Davos Man, or, yes, a Davos Woman, even for just a couple of days, doesn’t come cheap.
For the past week, I have interviewed more than a dozen chief executive officers and other executives who regularly make the pilgrimage to mingle at a high altitude in order to measure the true financial cost for corporations to attend the annual meeting.
But before we get to the fees for private planes, hotels, and a car and driver, there’s the all-important ticket. And it isn’t free.
Just to have the opportunity to be invited to Davos, you must be invited to be a member of the World Economic Forum, a Swiss nonprofit that was founded by Klaus Schwab, a German-born academic who managed to build a global conference in the snow.
There are several levels of membership: the basic level, which will get you one invitation to Davos, costs 50,000 Swiss francs (US$52,000). The ticket itself is another SF18,000, plus tax, bringing the total cost of membership and entrance fee to US$71,000.
But that fee just gets you in the door with the masses at Davos, with entry to all the general sessions. If you want to be invited behind the velvet rope to participate in private sessions among your industry’s peers, you need to step up to the “Industry Associate” level. That costs US$137,000, plus the price of the ticket, bringing the total to about US$156,000.
Of course, most chief executives don’t like going anywhere alone, so they might ask a colleague along. Well, the World Economic Forum doesn’t just let you buy an additional ticket for US$19,000. Instead, you need to upgrade your annual membership to the “Industry Partner” level. That will set you back about US$263,000, plus the cost of two tickets, bringing the total to US$301,000.
And if you want to take an entourage of, say, five people? Now you’re talking about the “Strategic Partner” level. The price tag: US$527,000. (That’s just the annual membership entitling you to as many as five invitations. Each invitation is still US$19,000 each, so if five people come, that’s US$95,000, making the total US$622,000.) This year, all “Strategic Partners” are required to invite at least one woman along as part of an effort to diversify the attendee list.
As part of the strategic partner level, you get access to the private sessions as well as special conference rooms to hold meetings. And perhaps the biggest perk of all, your car and driver are given a sticker allowing door-to-door pick up service.
At the moment, the forum says they are not accepting applications to become “strategic partners” unless the company is from China or India and is one of the 250 largest companies in the world.
In fairness, it is worth pointing out that membership at all levels doesn’t just get you access to the meeting in Davos, but also to at least a half-dozen other meetings held around the world. Membership also gives you access to the forum’s various research projects as well.
All those costs, of course, don’t include the travel-related costs of getting to Switzerland, schlepping around and perhaps holding a dinner or a cocktail party for clients (which is where the real action happens anyway).
One large investor is renting a five-bedroom chalet this year just outside of Davos for himself and his staff. The cost? US$140,000 for the week. A car and driver, which the World Economic Forum will organize for you, is about US$10,000 a week for a Mercedes S Class.
A first-class fare from New York to Zurich is running at about US$11,000, but a private plane using NetJets will cost you about US$70,000 for a round-trip. Helicopter service from Zurich to Davos? US$3,400 each way. (The forum provides a free bus service for those worried about their environmental footprint.)
Of course, many companies have dinners for clients, with dinners on multiple evenings for some firms.
At the Posthotel, for example, the restaurant is charging a minimum of US$210 a head. A cocktail party for 60 to 80 people for just one hour? That costs about US$8,000. Two hours? US$16,000.
The bigger parties, like one that was scheduled to be given by Google on Wednesday night for several hundred people, can run more than US$250,000 for the evening. (In years past, Google has flown in the band and bartenders; one year, the company had an oxygen bar.)
All these embedded costs have helped make the World Economic Forum a big business — perhaps the biggest conference organizer in the world. According to its annual report, it brings in about US$185 million in revenue and spends nearly all of it, with almost half of its costs going toward events and the other half on personnel.
But all this spending may soon be going out of vogue. As one attendee, the author David Rothkopf, recently wrote on his blog: “The entire endeavor is fading for several reasons, all associated with the inadequacy of Davos as a networking forum.”
“As Steve Case, founder of AOL, once told me while standing at the bar in the middle of the hubbub of the main conference center: ‘You always feel like you are in the wrong place in Davos, like there is some better meeting going on somewhere in one of the hotels that you really ought to be at. Like the real Davos is happening in secret somewhere,’” Rothkopf wrote.
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has long been a cornerstone of US foreign policy, advancing not only humanitarian aid but also the US’ strategic interests worldwide. The abrupt dismantling of USAID under US President Donald Trump ‘s administration represents a profound miscalculation with dire consequences for global influence, particularly in the Indo-Pacific. By withdrawing USAID’s presence, Washington is creating a vacuum that China is eager to fill, a shift that will directly weaken Taiwan’s international position while emboldening Beijing’s efforts to isolate Taipei. USAID has been a crucial player in countering China’s global expansion, particularly in regions where
With the manipulations of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), it is no surprise that this year’s budget plan would make government operations difficult. The KMT and the TPP passing malicious legislation in the past year has caused public ire to accumulate, with the pressure about to erupt like a volcano. Civic groups have successively backed recall petition drives and public consensus has reached a fever-pitch, with no let up during the long Lunar New Year holiday. The ire has even breached the mindsets of former staunch KMT and TPP supporters. Most Taiwanese have vowed to use
Despite the steady modernization of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA), the international community is skeptical of its warfare capabilities. Late last month, US think tank RAND Corp published two reports revealing the PLA’s two greatest hurdles: personnel challenges and structural difficulties. The first RAND report, by Jennie W. Wenger, titled Factors Shaping the Future of China’s Military, analyzes the PLA’s obstacles with recruitment, stating that China has long been committed to attracting young talent from top universities to augment the PLA’s modernization needs. However, the plan has two major constraints: demographic changes and the adaptability of the PLA’s military culture.
As an American living in Taiwan, I have to confess how impressed I have been over the years by the Chinese Communist Party’s wholehearted embrace of high-speed rail and electric vehicles, and this at a time when my own democratic country has chosen a leader openly committed to doing everything in his power to put obstacles in the way of sustainable energy across the board — and democracy to boot. It really does make me wonder: “Are those of us right who hold that democracy is the right way to go?” Has Taiwan made the wrong choice? Many in China obviously