Let me be the first to comment on how utterly ridiculous I find the IOC's decision to be regarding the selection of Rio for the 2016 summer Olympics.
With crime rampant and poverty beyond description, I have a difficult time supporting this vote. I am not necessarily saying I would have selected Chicago (though I probably would have), but Rio would be my last choice. I strongly doubt that the 2016 games will be much of a revenue generator. Additionally, I have difficulty thinking that as hundreds of thousands of Rio residents living in cardboard boxes are scrounging to feed their chilldren, that the Brazilian government will be spending billions to build new infrastructure for a two week stage with the world. All of this so that the IOC can rest and say the games have finally been held in South America.
I think that sometimes meeting planners make that same error. They select a location just because they should to be "inclusive," shunning all practicality. Meeting planners should always anticipate the worst case scenario when selecting a location. Things like the bottoming out of the economy, the perception of traveling to certain places such as Hawaii, war, disease, accessibility to the market, etc. When a site is selected, should not these factors be considered. I'm not saying avoid first teir locations, or exotic locations, but make sure you plan for low attendance, loss of revenue, complaints from attendees, etc. I think Rio and the IOC have much to be worried about for 2016.