Oscar Cerezales: "I have seen how, through events, cities and countries have been transformed"

He attends to us from somewhere in the mountains of Tokyo. On the other side of the screen, a green, almost silent landscape, occasionally interrupted by a small herd of goats that sneaks into the conversation. With a coffee in hand, he speaks with the calm of someone who has spent years moving between cities like Singapore, Geneva, or Chicago, and with the clarity of someone who understands his industry from within and from afar at the same time.

Óscar Cerezales is global president of MCI Group, one of the most influential international companies in the field of events and engagement. But he doesn't talk about congresses as someone who organizes meetings, but as someone who designs connection systems. For him, a congress is not a point on the calendar, but a platform where knowledge, business, influence, and community intersect. At a time when Barcelona is debating its tourism model and its global positioning, his perspective shifts the focus to something less visible, but much more decisive: what remains when everything else disappears. Like that landscape on the other side of the screen.

— Congresses are often spoken of as an industry, but you tend to talk more about communities and audiences. Are we misunderstanding what a congress truly is today?

— Before I answer, a small distinction must be made, because when we talk about events, we tend to put everything in the same bag, and that's not the case. There are many types: professional congresses, trade fairs, corporate, cultural, or sporting events, and each has a different logic. But if we simplify and go to the essence, the problem is that we continue to understand a congress as something punctual, almost like a place you go to for a few days. And it is not.

— And what is it?

— A platform where several things happen at once: there is content and learning, there is connection between people who share the same profession or interest, there is influence —because trends are set— and also a commercial dimension, where business opportunities are generated. And when a city hosts one of these events, it is not just hosting a congress. It is activating all of that at once. That is why the impact is not only economic, which it is —and very relevant—, but also social, and it also projects over time.

That's where strategy comes in. It's not about bringing many events, but about attracting the right ones. About understanding what type of congresses generate more value for the city and building, from there, a model that maximizes that impact. The problem is that all this has not been well explained. It's a conversation that exists at a strategic level, but it doesn't reach the citizen. And when it's not understood, it's very difficult to value it.

— What does Barcelona have that, perhaps, we are not so aware of having?

— There are several things we take for granted and that, when you work abroad, you understand are not so much. The first, for example, is security. It may seem basic but it is not at all when you operate globally. When you organize events in cities like São Paulo, in certain areas of Asia or even in large cities in the United States, security stops being a detail and becomes a key factor in decision-making. And there Barcelona plays with an advantage, although many times we are not aware of it.

There's also the issue of cost. Barcelona is not a cheap city, but it is still more accessible than other major capitals like Paris or New York, and that makes it competitive. Another very important point is talent. Barcelona has relatively easy access to professionals from many countries, with very international profiles. That pool of multicultural talent is a huge asset.

And then there's everything related to knowledge: scientific production, clusters in sectors like medical or technological... And to all that is added infrastructure, connectivity, mobility... and something more intangible, which is positioning. Barcelona is already in people's minds globally. And that is not built overnight.

— What has Barcelona done well to consolidate itself as one of the leading destinations for congresses?

— There are several key factors. The first is pragmatism. Barcelona, historically, has been a city capable of making strategic decisions beyond political color. It doesn't matter who governs: if an event is good for the city, they bet on it. That approach has been fundamental.

The second has to do with structures. The city has organizations like Turismo de Barcelona, the Convention Bureau or the Chamber of Commerce, which work with a long-term vision and considerable independence. This allows for a sustained strategy over time.

"When you are a leader, the rest observe you, copy you and compete with you."

— Is that leadership today an advantage… or is it starting to be a responsibility?

It is a responsibility, and an increasingly greater one. When you are a leader, the rest observe you, copy you, and compete with you. And that forces you to constantly be one step ahead. Barcelona has that pressure: everyone looks at it as a reference.

However, innovating does not simply mean investing more or holding bigger events. Innovating has to do with the model: with what type of events you attract, how you connect them to each other, what industries you decide to promote, or how you generate real value for the city.

— At a time when Barcelona is debating the impact of tourism, is congress tourism part of the problem… or can it be part of the solution?

I am not neutral on this: I clearly believe it is part of the solution. First, for an economic reason. The business visitor has a much higher average expenditure than more massive or weekend tourism. And that has a direct impact on the city.

But it's not just a matter of money. It also has to do with the type of visitor you attract. A professional who comes to a congress not only consumes, but also generates connections, shares knowledge, and, in many cases, becomes an advocate for the city when they return to their environment.

Furthermore, it is a much more predictable model. You know how many people will come, when, for how long, and what impact it will have. This allows it to be managed better than other tourist flows that are much more difficult to control.

And there is another important point: the business tourist is, for a few days, just another citizen. But with a different dynamic, less massive and with a more qualitative impact.

— Has the real value of this type of tourism not been explained to citizens?

Yes, completely. And that has made the way we measure impact fall short. For years, the focus has been on figures: how much money a congress generates, how many millions it leaves in the city… But that tells the citizen little. These are numbers that are not felt.

The real impact is much more complex. It works like a domino effect. An event not only generates activity for a few days, but also activates dynamics that extend over time: professional connections, new opportunities, investment, sector development… things that are not always visible in the short term.

"It's not about bringing many events, but about attracting the right ones."

Legacy can take many forms, but there is one key condition: it has to be tangible. It cannot remain a feeling or just that the event went well. It has to translate into something concrete. It can range from investment in research, educational programs, improvements in the healthcare system, or access to knowledge that did not exist before. But it has to be real.

Furthermore, that legacy must have continuity over time. It is not very useful if it happens for a few days and then disappears. It has to be something that can grow, that can be maintained and, in many cases, replicated beyond the event itself.

It is also important to understand that legacy is not automatic. It doesn't just happen. It requires intention and, above all, method. Cities cannot limit themselves to attracting events; they have to define what they want to get out of them.

— What changes are shaping the present of congresses?

— Some are more evident, such as geopolitics or economic cycles, which directly condition how events are organized. And there are also relevant dynamics that are not always discussed as much. One of them is talent. It is increasingly difficult to find profiles with certain skills, train them, and retain them. Everything related to talent has become a central axis of the sector.

Another important trend is the change in timing. We are in a much more 'last minute' ecosystem. People sign up for events later and later, and that makes planning much more complex.

Of course, there is technology, automation, and system integration, which are transforming the operations of the sector. And there are other factors that are increasingly important, such as diversity, inclusion, and sustainability. All of this connects directly with the concept of legacy, with what kind of impact you want to generate beyond the event itself.

In addition, the sector is exploring new business models and new forms of collaboration, because margins are increasingly tight and force a rethinking of how value is created. And then there is a deeper change: how we consume. The way people interact with content has changed, formats are shorter, more dynamic, and that forces a complete redesign of the experience.

— Innovation seems inevitable but, to what extent is it real and to what extent does it respond more to discourse than to a profound transformation?

In many cases, it's more discourse than reality. Innovation is happening in efficiency, automation, system connection… but that doesn't always mean innovating in experience or model. And here there's an important difference: a corporate event is not the same as a congress.

The corporate event does innovate a lot, because behind it there are companies that are obliged to generate differential experiences, that 'wow effect'. In contrast, in many congresses, that pressure doesn't exist. If you're a doctor, you want to sit down and listen to relevant content. And that means that, in general, the level of innovation is lower.

Artificial intelligence, moreover, is changing the rules of the game. It allows doing more with less, automating processes, and democratizing access to tools. But it has a clear side effect: everything starts to look too similar. Content looks similar, presentations look similar, the way we communicate looks similar… and that generates a certain fatigue. That more artisanal, more unique layer, which made something truly stand out, is lost. This also connects with another question: are we moving towards more personalized experiences or towards greater saturation?

We live in an environment with many stimuli. But precisely because of that, events have an advantage: they are one of the few spaces capable of breaking through that noise. There are exceptions that manage to generate truly differential experiences, and that's where the value lies. But, in general, yes: there is a tendency towards homogenization. And that forces us to rethink many things.

—And in the midst of all that evolution, after everything you've seen, what still makes all this make sense to you?

— On a personal level, there's something that cannot be replaced: direct contact. The possibility of sitting at an event and having a Nobel Prize winner, a writer, an athlete who tells you their story in front of you… you don't get that anywhere else. It cannot be replicated.

Then there's the human part of the job. I manage teams in more than 35 countries, with about 3,000 people. And that diversity, that mix of cultures, of ways of working, is something that continues to motivate me a lot.

And, finally, the impact. I have seen how, through events, cities and countries have been transformed. I have seen how unemployment rates have been reduced, how educational indicators have improved… real changes that go far beyond the event itself.

In the end, beyond business, there is a dimension of transformation that is what makes all of this make sense.