Last week was a busy week and a story I put a lot of time into fell apart. That happens sometimes. And, as I was frantically looking for things to write, I sent a hasty e-mail in response to a press release requesting an interview with Christina Aguilera, who was making some sort of hosting appearance Friday night at Tao at Venetian. Imagine my surprise when the answer came back: "Yes."

This being Vegas, I should have looked at once for the strings and stared into the mouth of that gift horse. I would not have had to look far. Advertisements for Aguilera's appearance at Tao on Friday gave her  second billing to Stephen Webster, a famous jewelry designer. And, in fact, had I read the advertisement, in slightly smaller font but still  in pretty big print, I would have seen quite clearly that the event was to "celebrate the launch of the 2009 collections by Stephen Webster."  A little homework would have told me that there was a huge jewelry convention going on in Vegas. Aguilera was at Tao to have a private dinner and then host that evening at the club to impress jewelry buyers and industry insiders using her fame to push the product line. It worked too. With national as well as local media, Aguilera's presence brought coverage usually not afforded trade shows in Vegas. Or, as the talkative Stephen Webster put it: "The biggest jewelry show in America is going on now. Everyone launches new products here. It is not so much about Las Vegas as it is about this show is in this city and that is why we do our events here." That is a pity to a blogger who covers Vegas.

My interview was set for five minutes, and I was told Aguilera would only do interviews alongside  Webster. But as these things happen, by the time I was brought back to Aguilera in her private dining room at Tao, everything was running late. I was told I would be allowed to ask only one question that did not relate to jewelry and that question would be the sign: After she answered, the interview was over. The public-relations people were not quite that strict, but with everyone hovering nervously, the conversation between us lasted a little more than three minutes before she had to end it. I did not get a chance to ask her about her ownership steak in LAX at Luxor, which I am very curious to hear her view on. But I am guessing she would have expertly said nothing. Asked about Eminem's new disc, she expressed no knowledge of it. Asked about her own disc that may be coming out this year, she claimed to have made no decision about the title. The most interesting aspect of her music-making process that came up is that she uses a mood board to help plan albums. Do you think Bob Dylan has done it that way?

Of course, this mood-board thing came up,  unsurprisingly, because the mood board was the connection between this untitled Aguilera disc and Stephan Webster's jewelry line. "I am not part of the design; I am merely the face," Aguilera told me. Then she clarified: "What actually happens is that I give him the direction I am going with my next album. My last album had a vintage, retro, glam appeal. And this next album which I am almost finished and am about to release has a very modern sense about it."

Webster added: "A year ago, I was at Christina's house, and she was showing me her mood boards for her new album; this was before any recording was done. I am quite good at looking at a mood board and understanding what the vibe is going to be about. I then go off and do my jewelry design and she goes off and does her album. But what you have is the same starting point. So, it works."

"Right," Aguilera agreed. Asked the mood of the new disc, she added: "Futuristic in terms of looking into the future and giving it a new twist and a new sensibility." How do you give a new twist to a future that hasn't happened yet? Aguilera explained: "I am working with a lot of electro artists to make that come alive. That is what really inspires me at the moment. And what is great is that I interpret it in my musical way and he interprets in his jewelry way." 

With that, everyone started signaling it was time for me to leave, but Webster wanted to add one thing:

"The other night, I was fortunate enough to listen to Christina's new album, and the next day, I e-mailed Christina about one track for the name of a jewelry line. But that really is the way we collaborate with each other."

After the brief interview, Aguilera posed for a photo with Webster (of course). Then the two of them hit the red carpet for a few minutes before returning to the dining room to eat. The expert skill the duo displayed for staying on message about jewelry would make them the envy of any politician.  At the end of the red carpet, I saw Robin Leach ready to interview Aguilera, but the tiny singer vanished under his arm, which was extended, holding out a tape recorder. Instead, Leach was left to talk jewelry with Webster.

So, if you want to know what Christina Aguilera's new disc will sound like, check out the bling on these two. After all, both spring from the same mood board.

Photo: Sarah Gerke

Last Friday CNN reported on a convention taking place this week at the Venetian for a group called the American Securitization Forum. In a voice-over, the correspondent offered this on the attendees:

"They'll huddle here at the five-star Venetian on the Vegas Strip, where gondolas float beneath $300-a-night rooms, hobnobbing with government officials, doing business deals, trying to plug leaks in an industry that's been kept afloat by government bailouts."

I was dubious and challenged the $300 price by going to the Venetian site and finding rooms in some cases for $145, less than half of that CNN price quote. I tried, without success, to reach CNN to find out where the $300 number came from.

Today, the Review-Journal makes a similar point in a front page story that takes on the CNN report. The Review-Journal notes of the CNN story: "The report cited '$300 hotel rooms,' as an example of extravagance, even though rooms at The Venetian are actually going for $189 per night on Las Vegas hotel-booking Web sites." The Review-Journal makes no note of any effort they may have made to reach  CNN to find out where the cable news network got that $300-a-night number.

The reason the emphasis on the extravagance of Vegas is so touchy locally right now is that, in general, the convention planners and experts I have spoken to see us as a value-conscious destination for a meeting in the overwhelming majority of cases. It is cheap to travel here, the resorts compete against each other to steal conventions by giving out good deals, and our meeting facilities are among the most extraordinary in the world. Vegas can also accommodate any size group: from the massive Consumer Electronics Show to something as small as a family reunion. Finally, Vegas has a focus lacking at other destinations: Vacations and conventions are pretty much what this city specializes in doing well.  In short, for most groups, Las Vegas should be a cheaper place as well as a better-equipped place to hold a convention than rivals like San Francisco, New York, San Diego, Dallas and Chicago.

But, as I have noted before, the pricing reality about Vegas is being totally undermined by the perception of Vegas as too extravagant for a responsible company to hold a meeting in this economy. As Phil Cooper of Encore Productions is quoted in the Review-Journal saying about the CNN report: "They are trying to make it out that Las Vegas has become this toxic city you can't even go to."

Meanwhile, I was called by CNN who explained to me where the infuriating $300-a-night number in their report came from. While all the Vegas press, including the Review-Journal and I, were looking at the travel and resort sites, CNN went to the convention site for the American Securitization Forum and found clearly written: "The ASF group rate at The Venetian & Palazzo Resorts is $319 per night plus applicable taxes."

In fact, the pricing turns out to be more complicated than that. After repeating that $319 a night number a lot, another number appears buried in the final paragraph on room pricing:

"Discounted rooms at The Venetian & Palazzo Resorts are available to qualified registered ASF member investors (a maximum of three individuals per firm), who may reserve a room at the discounted rate of $219 per night, for up to five nights, if available. Investors must be registered for the conference and also be employees of an ASF member firm in order to receive a discounted hotel room."

Obviously if you attend a convention for an organization you are already registered for the convention. And probably you are also from firms that are members of the organization holding the conference. Also many rooms at the Venetian have two beds and other ways to accommodate more than one person. So, despite the $319-a-night listing, in reality many attendees probably paid only $219. Or, if they just went on the Web outside the convention special, they could have gotten an even lower price as the Review-Journal did. I think it is fair to say that the pricing was opaque to figure out.

So at this point I think it is time to stop blaming the media in general and, in this case, CNN  in particular, as that cable network clearly made a good-faith effort to get the number right. The resort and the convention made it confusing.

In fact, this example shows how the perception that Vegas is outrageously expensive and for top-tier extravagance only has been nurtured and fostered by the resorts. Why? The resorts want you to think that you have a bargain price and value. You are getting a $319 room and paying only $219. But even that $219 is a bit much when compared with lower rates online. There are  also multiple packages that include discounted rooms along with, say, airfare. So the higher the official rate for a room, the more wiggle room for the wide range of coded packages and discounts the resorts are constantly putting together and sending out to anyone who registers on their sites. 

The complexity of room rates is one of the sciences of Vegas. But the philosophy behind it plays out throughout Vegas culture. Show tickets are another example. Except for most Cirque shows and major headliners, face ticket pricing for production shows on the Strip is outrageously beyond what any remotely savvy tourist pays. A little effort will turn up two-for-one coupons halving the cost, or free tickets to a hotel's show will come with the room. Dinner and show packages are also common. The result should be a customer who feels he or she has gotten a real bargain at every step when in reality everyone gets some sort of deal and almost no one pays face value.

This tactic of fronting inflated prices to create a sense that people have received a deal is what is hurting Vegas now so badly. The media cannot be blamed for quoting list prices even if locals know that list prices are not what things really cost.

I think now is the time to start announcing openly how cheaply rooms can be had in Vegas, as well as promoting honesty in pricing of show tickets. Otherwise, I think Las Vegas really might become a  "toxic city" for convention business. Vegas needs to do more than offer bargains, but actually front-and-center how cheaply things can be had here right now.

On Monday night, Goldman Sachs Group pulled out of a three-day meeting at Mandalay Bay set for later this month. They are holding the convention instead in San Francisco. There is this chilling moment in the AP story on the cancellation that is very revealing:

A Mandalay Bay official, who requested anonymity because he was not authorized to release customer information, said the bank agreed to pay the hotel $600,000 to cancel its reservation.

Goldman spokesman Ed Canaday confirmed the conference move to the Associated Press on Monday night but could not comment on the cancellation charge.

Canaday said he did not know whether the company was saving money or spending more with the move.

"That's not the driving reason behind it," Canaday told the AP.

"The decision to relocate the conference is based on our best efforts to operate according to the requirements of the new landscape of our industry," Canaday said.

If I get this right, Goldman Sachs would rather spend more money paying Mandalay Bay to cancel and then book a San Francisco hotel, than come to Vegas now. In other words, the issue is no longer about the best place to hold a cost-effective meeting, but the perception that a meeting in Vegas on its face is wasteful spending, whereas spending even more to go to San Francisco can sidestep the controversy --  even if getting that to happen requires meeting the very definition of wasteful spending (paying for the same convention essentially twice).

Vegas had better be quick and proactive in reminding people that our convention business and facilities are meant to be affordable or we are in for some grim times from a wound that is increasingly looking self-inflicted.

Photo: The Venetian, Las Vegas. Credit: Sarah Gerke

Recently, I wrote about the canceled Wells Fargo trip to Vegas that was trashed by many in the media as an example of banker excess. In that item, I worried  "that there is now a perception that a business trip to Vegas represents an excessive expense to a company."

I also pointed out the reality:

"The truth is that Vegas has never been a cheaper place to hold a meeting. A fiscally responsible company head could and should bring an event here. You can comparison shop among the best convention facilities in the country, and Vegas resorts are adept at accommodating the needs of all sorts of groups."

I concluded: "But that reality will not matter in the face of perception. And Vegas once again must remind people in a big way of what once was obvious to all: This town is meant to be a bargain destination."

Anyway, I watched a segment on CNN's Anderson Cooper over the weekend called "Keeping Them Honest" where a different convention of bankers in Vegas was under scrutiny.  In one segment, a voice-over says of the bankers:

"They'll huddle here at the five-star Venetian on the Vegas Strip, where gondolas float beneath $300-a-night rooms, hobnobbing with government officials, doing business deals, trying to plug leaks in an industry that's been kept afloat by government bailouts."

The report goes on to quote a congressman as saying just one night stay at the Venetian is about a third of the monthly mortgage payment in his hometown of Baltimore.

And this was just about when I felt the need for a reality check. The Venetian site is currently offering rooms starting at $145 (less than half the price noted on CNN). Checking different dates on the Venetian site, I can find suites far under $300 almost every night. I failed to find any nights at $300 or over. I am not saying there are not busy times of year when room rates shoot up to $300 at the Venetian. But in this economy? Doubtful. And, CNN is right about the luxury rooms at the Venetian. They are amazing. That is what a bargain is all about. Right now, rooms are going for less than $300 almost everywhere on the Strip almost every night, the Venetian included. Room prices adjust down quickly in Vegas. Plus, conventions often buy rooms in bulk so rooms are generally discounted.

So, why did CNN use the $300 number? I have put in a couple of phone calls and e-mails to the network but haven't gotten a reply yet.  I hope I do. Because giving such a room price makes Vegas look pricier than it is, and the Venetian in particular has worked hard to court convention business.

Again, I think Vegas has a lot of work to do to remind people that a convention held here has always been meant to be an affordable experience or these stories quoting over-the-top prices will do real damage to Vegas' convention business, a key to the Strip's future.

Photo: Sarah Gerke

Two headlines in the Review-Journal side by side Wednesday helped make the point of just how perilous the economy is right now in Vegas: "Wells Fargo defends, then cancels junket," and "Wynn resorts to cut staff hours, bonuses to avoid layoffs."

The headlines tell the story. And, if you follow the national press, you know the outrage the Wells Fargo story generated when, after taking bailout money, it was discovered the company planned an event at Wynn's properties on the Strip over 12 days, including a four-day sales conference.

Of course, that means the Wells Fargo employees did not come to the union casinos and spend money in their usual way. Their usual way of doing business has changed. And, if too many other companies follow, the implications for Vegas could be horrifying.

A lot of what concerns me about this story is how Vegas is perceived.  At one time, the country would be outraged because of the frivolous nature of Vegas for a retreat and the unlikelihood that anyone would come here to discuss work. I am sure there is still some of that. But. in fact. Vegas has done a good job in getting the message out that we can hold serious conventions, business meetings, conferences and retreats. The resort convention and meeting facilities are top-notch here, and they also tend to be set off a bit from the resorts' gambling, shopping and nightclubs. The convention centers are their own little world. And except for walking to your room, you can avoid the other side of Vegas while attending a work event here, if you are so inclined. You really can come to Las Vegas and work. And I think people by and large get that. So I don't think the Wells Fargo outrage was a work/play issue (or at least not entirely), and that is what concerns me. Play certainly was part of the issue. Wells Fargo took billions in government bailout money and, yes, this trip seemed at least as much play as work being dedicated in part to employee "recognition."

Still, the thing that struck me about the coverage is the sense in the national media that Vegas is now  clearly seen as a luxury destination and not as a bargain vacation. The outrage was not mitigated by the fact that another reason Vegas is such a popular convention destination is that it is relatively cheap, even compared to less glamorous places like, say, Albany (and, who would have cared if Wells Fargo employees were sent to upstate New York?). Groups have the ability to negotiate low group room rates and airfares and other incentives to make a retreat, junket, meeting or convention affordable in Vegas. The fact that rooms at Wynn are very expensive was quoted in almost every story on the Wells Fargo imbroglio. But I doubt that Wells Fargo was paying anything like the individual, totally discount-free room rate. No one does who has a computer. And groups do even better when it comes to getting discounts. Also, Wells Fargo claimed that it had real business to transact, the kind Vegas is great at, having acquired Wachovia and wanting to use Vegas to have the two corporate cultures get to know each other better while learning to work together. At least that was part of Wells Fargo's tortured explanation for the trip. I wish they had mentioned instead that they negotiated with a few casinos on the Strip and got a good deal on rooms from Wynn; if these were good sales employees, they should have. But Wells Fargo made no effort to defend Vegas as a bargain compared to past trips, like going to the Bahamas for a private Jimmy Buffett concert. The word bargain was not at all in Wells Fargo's strategy for defending the Vegas trip to the public.

Anyway, my deeper worry is that there is now a perception that a business trip to Vegas represents an excessive expense to a company. Could that view spread outside recipients of bailout funds? Will company heads begin to think about answering to boards and stockholders when OKing the Vegas conference?

The truth is that Vegas has never been a cheaper place to hold a meeting. A fiscally responsible company head could and should bring an event here. You can comparison shop among the best convention facilities in the country, and Vegas resorts are adept at accommodating the needs of all sorts of groups.  But that reality will not matter in the face of perception. And Vegas once again must remind people in a big way of what once was obvious to all: This town is meant to be a bargain destination.

The message that Vegas is a bargain obviously did not get through to anyone discussing the Wells Fargo situation.

Photo: Sarah Gerke