There is a particular kind of exhaustion that comes from watching AV teams carry the weight of an event, then still be treated like the expensive problem at the end of the planning process.
The microphone has to work. The screen has to show up. The lighting has to make the room feel intentional. The livestream has to hold. The executive walk-on has to land. The speaker has to feel supported. The audience has to hear, see, follow, and stay connected.
And somehow, the people responsible for all of that are still brought in too late, questioned too hard, and blamed too quickly when the production budget finally reflects what the event actually requires.
That is why Encore ’s IPO filing deserves attention.
Not because Encore is the only issue. It is not.
Encore is simply the largest and most visible example right now of a venue-based AV model that planners have been dealing with for a very long time, often without fully understanding the business mechanics behind it.
If the IPO Is the Headline, the Venue Contract Is the Story.
Encore’s filing has sparked plenty of conversation about venue-based AV, pricing, exclusivity, public-market pressure, and what happens when one of the largest AV production companies in the world prepares to trade publicly.
The company’s scale is significant. Encore has become deeply embedded across hotels, convention spaces, and venue partner properties, which means its business model is not only about microphones, projectors, LED walls, labor, and show calls. It is also about venue relationships, preferred provider agreements, revenue capture, commissions, service packaging, and the ability to generate more revenue from existing venue footprints.
That is the part planners need to understand.
When a venue has a preferred or exclusive AV provider, the pricing conversation is rarely just about the gear in the room. It may also include the economics of the venue relationship itself. The venue expects revenue. The AV provider has to make that agreement viable. The client wants a polished event. The planner is often left trying to reconcile the creative vision, the venue rules, the quote, and the remaining budget.
By the time AV is brought into the process, many of the most important decisions may already be locked.
The venue has been selected. The rooms are contracted. The internet terms are set. The rigging rules are buried in the agreement. The outside AV language may already be signed. The loading dock requirements, freight elevator access, labor rules, power pricing, service charges, screen usage, house sound terms, and lighting controls may all be part of the venue ecosystem before a production partner ever sees the event brief.
Then everyone acts shocked when the AV quote feels high.
That is not a quote problem alone. That is a planning problem.
Why Public-Market Pressure Changes the Conversation
When a company prepares to go public, it has to tell a growth story that investors can understand. That story usually includes revenue growth, margin improvement, customer expansion, service adoption, stronger selling discipline, better use of capital, and clearer measurement of how each customer relationship creates value.
For a service-heavy live event production company, that can show up in several ways: more defined packages, more consistent pricing logic, tighter labor planning, greater focus on add-on services, higher capture within existing venues, stronger venue partner alignment, and more attention to revenue per event.
Encore’s own filing points to nearly 88% growth in average revenue per event from 2019 to 2025. That number should make planners pause.
The immediate question is not whether Encore is allowed to grow. Of course it is. Large companies grow by selling more services, improving pricing, adding capabilities, investing in technology, and deepening client relationships.
The better question is whether planners understand what they are buying, what they are locked into, what is negotiable, and what costs are created by the venue agreement before the event design ever begins.
Because once a public company enters the picture, the financial expectations do not become softer. They become more visible, more measured, and more tied to performance.
That does not automatically mean every planner will see higher costs. It does mean planners need to be more informed. Public companies are expected to create shareholder value. In a service business, that pressure often shows up in how offerings are priced, packaged, sold, bundled, and measured.
If planners do not know how venue-based AV works before signing the venue contract, they are negotiating from behind before production planning even starts.
What Eventbrite Teaches Us About Public Markets and Event Pricing
Eventbrite is not the same kind of company as Encore. Eventbrite is an event technology and ticketing platform. Encore is a labor-heavy, equipment-heavy, venue-embedded live event production company. The comparison is not perfect, but it is useful.
Eventbrite went public in 2018 under the ticker EB. Once it became a public company, its business was judged through public-market expectations: revenue growth, ticket volume, paid creator activity, product monetization, marketplace reach, and the ability to increase value from each transaction.
Over time, Eventbrite’s pricing model became more layered and more clearly monetized. Today, Eventbrite’s U.S. pricing includes a service fee on paid tickets plus payment processing. Free events can still be published at no cost, but paid events carry transaction-based fees, and organizers can also run paid promotional options through the platform.
Again, the point is not that Eventbrite’s IPO alone caused every pricing change that followed. That would be too simplistic.
The point is that public-market companies are pushed to make value measurable. They need clearer pricing. They need repeatable revenue. They need investor-friendly growth. They need to show where the money comes from and how it can expand.
That is the lesson planners should take from Eventbrite.
Once an event company becomes accountable to public investors, the way it monetizes services becomes more intentional. Sometimes that creates better products, better data, better integrations, stronger reporting, and more reliable user experiences. Sometimes it creates more fees, more paid features, more bundled offerings, and more pressure on customers who thought they understood the original cost model.
In ticketing, that shows up as service fees, processing fees, paid promotion, and premium tools.
In venue-based AV, it may show up as service packages, preferred provider rules, labor structures, add-on production services, internet packages, rigging requirements, equipment bundles, technology upgrades, and stronger capture of revenue from each event inside the venue.
Different business. Similar lesson.
When public markets enter the room, pricing discipline tends to follow.
The AV Invoice Is Usually Telling a Bigger Story
Planners often see the AV quote as the problem because that is the document that lands in front of them with the number on it.
But the quote is usually the end of a longer chain of decisions.
A ballroom was selected. A venue agreement was signed. The client approved a creative direction. The agenda expanded. More screens were added. The keynote needed confidence monitors. The sponsor wanted branded walk-in content. The general session needed recording. The remote speaker needed a virtual bridge. The executive team wanted a polished look. The room needed scenic, lighting, audio, cameras, labor, show calling, internet, power, and a crew that could make all of it work.
Then AV is asked to “make it work” inside a budget that was built before anyone priced the actual experience.
That is where resentment begins.
The planner feels trapped. The AV provider feels squeezed. The venue wants its share. The client thinks production is suddenly expensive. The crew carries the stress in real time, often with less time, less money, and less respect than the work deserves.
This is why the Encore conversation should not become “planners versus AV.”
It also should not become “Encore is the villain.”
That framing is too small.
The venue wants its revenue. The AV provider has to cover labor, equipment, logistics, insurance, technical management, venue obligations, and profit. The planner wants a polished experience. The audience wants the event to actually work.
The problem is that production too often enters the conversation after the decisions with the largest cost impact have already been made.
The Costs Planners Need to Ask About Earlier
The hidden AV cost conversation is not new. Planners who have worked in hotels, convention centers, and major meeting venues know the list.
Patch fees.
Power.
Internet.
Rigging.
Labor minimums.
Service charges.
Freight elevator access.
Loading dock requirements.
Room lighting control.
House sound usage.
Screen fees.
Required supervision.
Outside AV restrictions.
Security requirements.
Union rules where applicable.
Overtime.
Meal penalties.
Early access.
Late-night load-out.
Storage.
Rehearsal access.
These are not minor details.
They directly shape the production design, budget, labor plan, creative flexibility, accessibility, broadcast quality, speaker support, and attendee experience.
And yet, too many planners ask about them after the venue is already selected.
That is too late.
The time to ask is before the venue contract is signed, when there is still leverage, room to negotiate, and the ability to compare one venue’s real event cost against another.
A ballroom rate is not the full cost of the room.
A low rental fee can become expensive when the AV terms, power charges, internet pricing, labor requirements, rigging rules, and exclusivity language are finally understood.
What Planners Should Do Before Signing
Planners do not need to become AV engineers. They do need to become better production advocates earlier in the planning process.
Before signing the venue contract, ask:
- Can we bring in an outside AV production partner?
- Are there exclusivity clauses?
- What services are exclusive?
- What services are preferred but negotiable?
- What patch fees apply?
- Who controls internet?
- What are the power costs?
- Who controls rigging?
- Are there required rigging supervisors?
- Who controls room lighting?
- What are there fees for built-in screens?
- What labor minimums apply?
- Are there union requirements?
- What service charges apply to AV?
- What are the loading dock rules?
- Is freight elevator access included?
- What are the move-in and move-out windows?
- What happens if rehearsal requires early access?
- What costs apply if production loads out after standard hours?
These questions are not about making the venue or the in-house provider the enemy. They are about understanding the real cost of producing the event before the budget becomes fiction.
Download our Initial AV Screening Questions Free PDF
When In-House AV Is the Right Fit, and Why the Client Still Needs an Independent Technical Producer
This conversation also needs honesty from the production side.
In-house AV is not automatically the wrong choice. Sometimes it is the most practical choice. If the event is simple, the room systems are solid, the scope is contained, and the in-house team is properly staffed, using the venue’s provider can make sense. There are excellent in-house technicians who know their rooms, their signal paths, their power limits, their lighting quirks, and their venue rules better than anyone coming in from the outside.
The issue is not the existence of in-house AV.
The issue is who the in-house AV provider ultimately answers to.
The in-house provider has a relationship with the venue. In many cases, that relationship includes preferred provider agreements, revenue commitments, commission structures, approved labor pools, internal policies, and venue rules the client may never fully see. That does not make the provider bad, it simply means their role is different from the role of an independent technical event producer.
A technical event producer works on behalf of the client.
That distinction matters for planners because the client needs someone at the table who can look at the AV plan, the estimate, the room design, the labor assumptions, the internet requirements, the rigging rules, the show flow, and the technical risks through the lens of the event’s goals, not the venue’s revenue model.
This is where an independent technical event planner or producer becomes valuable, especially when the client is required to use the house AV team.
The job is not to walk in and fight with in-house AV. That helps no one.
The job is to translate the event vision into technical requirements, review the proposal line by line, identify gaps before they become show-site problems, ask the questions planners may not know to ask, push back where the estimate does not match the scope, and make sure the in-house team is resourced to deliver the experience the client is paying for.
That can include reviewing the AV estimate, clarifying labor calls, confirming rehearsal needs, checking internet capacity, reviewing power and rigging requirements, identifying unnecessary equipment, flagging missing equipment, aligning the show flow with the room setup, coordinating speaker needs, confirming recording and livestream requirements, and making sure accessibility and audience experience are included in the technical plan.
This is also where production experience protects the budget.
A planner may see a quote and only see a large number. A technical producer can see whether the quote is padded, underbuilt, missing critical labor, using the wrong gear, overcomplicating a simple setup, or quietly excluding the exact pieces that will become change orders later.
That is not about being anti-venue or anti-house AV.
It is about making sure the client has an advocate who understands the room, the contract, the show, and the consequences of getting the technical plan wrong.
If you want a high-touch general session, broadcast-quality recording, executive-level show calling, scenic integration, sponsor moments, multi-camera production, complex playback, hybrid participation, accessibility support, custom lighting, and a room that feels intentionally produced, then AV cannot be whatever is left after venue, F&B, décor, marketing, and executive requests have taken their share.
You need a real production budget from the start.
Not a leftover budget. Not a “we’ll figure out AV later” budget. Not a “can you just make it work” budget after everyone else has already had their turn at the table.
A real one.
You also need someone who knows how to protect it.
The issue is not the existence of in-house AV.
The issue is planners signing contracts without understanding what they are agreeing to, then expecting custom production freedom inside a model that was never priced or structured for that level of flexibility.
The Respect Problem Underneath the Pricing Problem
There is also a human layer here that should not be ignored.
AV teams have been treated as lesser than other event teams for decades. They are often called only when something breaks, noticed only when something fails, and expected to absorb poor planning with calm faces and fast fixes.
That has consequences.
It affects how budgets are built. It affects how early production is included. It affects how crews are staffed. It affects how much time is given for rehearsals, testing, load-in, and contingency planning. It affects whether the people behind the show are treated as strategic partners or as a last-minute expense.
You cannot demand excellence from a team you keep bringing in too late.
You cannot sell a premium event experience, underfund production, ignore venue AV terms, and then act offended when the real cost appears.
That is where the industry has to grow up.
The Real Takeaway From Encore’s IPO
Encore going public may make the economics of venue-based AV more visible, but the deeper issue did not begin with an IPO.
The issue has been here all along.
AV has been treated as an afterthought, then blamed for being expensive once the real cost of the experience finally shows up.
Public-market pressure may sharpen the business model. It may make pricing more disciplined. It may push more defined packages, stronger selling strategy, higher revenue per event, and more investment in technology. Some of that may benefit planners. Some of it may frustrate planners.
Either way, planners cannot afford to stay passive.
The next phase of event production will reward the planners who know how to ask better questions earlier, read the contract carefully, bring technical partners into the room before the venue decision is final, and budget for production as part of the experience rather than as cleanup after the vision has already been sold.
Encore is the headline.
The real story is whether planners, venues, brands, and production partners are finally ready to have a more honest conversation about what it actually takes to produce an event well.
Practical Takeaways for Planners
Bring AV expertise into the process before signing the venue contract.
Ask what is exclusive, what is preferred, and what is negotiable.
Price the full production need before finalizing the event budget.
Compare venues based on total event cost, not just room rental.
Read the AV terms with the same care you give F&B minimums and cancellation clauses.
Stop treating production as the leftover line item.
If the experience matters, fund the team and tools that deliver it.
And if you are planning a high-stakes meeting, conference, incentive program, executive event, or hybrid production, bring a technical production partner into the conversation before the venue contract locks your options. That one decision can save money, protect the experience, and prevent the painful surprise quote no one wants to receive three weeks before show day. And If your venue requires in-house AV, you still have options. Bring in an independent technical event producer to work on your behalf, review the AV plan, protect the production budget, translate the event vision into technical requirements, and hold the delivery accountable to the experience you promised your audience. The house AV team may work for the venue. Your technical producer works for you.
About the Author
Anca Platon Trifan, CMP, WMEP is the Founder and Principal Event Producer of Tree-Fan Events Productions LLC, a woman-owned and operated technical event production and strategy company specializing in corporate events, conferences, hybrid productions, executive meetings, and high-touch live experiences. With more than 24 years in AV, technical production, show calling, event technology, and virtual and hybrid event delivery, Anca has worked across nearly every side of the production table, from in-house AV and venue-based production to independent event strategy and full technical production leadership. Her work helps planners, brands, associations, and corporate teams make smarter production decisions earlier, protect their event budgets, and deliver more polished, accessible, and audience-centered experiences.
Anca is also the host of Events: Demystified, a Top 5 podcast in AV production and event technology, an AI strategist and speaker, and a longtime advocate for women in AV, healthier production environments, and better education around the real costs and responsibilities behind live event delivery.
Through Tree-Fan Events Productions LLC, Anca serves as an independent technical event producer and client-side production advocate, helping teams navigate venue AV contracts, in-house provider requirements, production budgets, run of show planning, speaker support, livestream and recording needs, and the many hidden technical decisions that shape whether an event actually works.
