From One Engineer to Another

Trade Shows? Ditch the bathwater, keep the baby!

Thursday, December 18, 2008 by Rick Short [Rick Short]
Keep The Baby, ditch the bathwater.

Keep The Baby, ditch the bathwater.

Apple Computer announced its last year at Macworld Expo. According to macworld.com:

"Apple is reaching more people in more ways than ever before, so like many companies, trade shows have become a very minor part of how Apple reaches its customers," the company said in the statement posted to its Web site.

In a comment to that article, reader John Storm notes:

The conference track at Macworld Expo is great, but I have worked major trade shows in the tech industry for years. The exhibit halls are the pretty much the same thing year after year. Often times they even use the same layouts if the venue is the same! Same old customers, same old questions. Even before the economy started taking a downturn, most companies have done trade shows just to "prove they are still alive relevant in the industry". Now, there has been a paradigm shift in the tech industry and companies realize they can get away with not attending. The PR bloody nose they might receive as a consequence is worth the savings. Most trades shows cost far money to exhibit at than they are worth. The unfortunate side effect is that conference oriented shows such as Macworld Expo may not survive financially as companies continue to pull out due to the lost exhibit hall revenue required to maintain the show.

I believe he's nailed the forward-thinking issue - which is, how can we not throw the baby out with the bath water? The baby? Technical conferences.

In my B2B practice, trade show exhibitors end up footing the bill for technical events. We've all started seeing through that, and are now doing something about it. The exhibits are no longer the place to announce product or technology breakthroughs (that's what websites, emails, SMSs, and word of mouth are for - as I noted in a recent comment on EMSPeople). By the time a trade show comes around, the news is out. What customers seem to be most interested in is hearing tech papers being delivered, being talked through the slides and the concepts, meeting the presenters and researchers, and discussing the topics with peers face to face. What suppliers are most interested in is increasing sales, profits, market share, and image via being seen as the most valuable purchasing option. And, speaking of paying for things, attendees also pay. They purchase air tickets, hotel rooms, meals, etc., and incur opportunity costs. They HOPE to derive a positive ROI, but can often be surprised by the results.

So, how do we retain (even enhance) our tech conferences while ditching the exhibitions? It all boils down to money. The only two parties involved are the suppliers and the consumers - so it's got to come from one or both sources. Since both parties benefit, it makes sense to share the expense. But how should the pie be divided? Perhaps we have reached the crux of the matter.

I suggest that it behooves the suppliers to generate COMPELLING findings, valuable tools, useful techniques, and profit-delivering pointers - to lure the customers. When the contents are extremely valuable, the customers should pay more. When the content is weak, the suppliers should pay more. (I know this doesn't address the cases where customers generate valuable data - my concept is far from perfected.)

Continuing ... then, we should ask all parties involved to rate the value of the information delivered. The score would be plugged into an equation and the costs would be divided accordingly (more imperfection - but it is a starting point).

Yes, this idea is a bit of a gamble. It asks people to commit to something with vague up-front costs. That needs to be addressed. But I like the idea of boiling it all down to VALUE.

Please share your better idea.

Image: ebaystrategies.blog.com

Learn More Contact the author of this entry
Share this entry
Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Tweet this Digg this Add to del.icio.us More

Comments for Trade Shows? Ditch the bathwater, keep the baby!

Thursday, December 18, 2008 by Dave J.:
The same applies to newspapers and trade publications, too. The reasons for a show or magazine are the same, its just the value proposition have changed. (Well, what its changed to is unknown.) And on the web, everyone just figures things should be free. Thats a whole nother problem. As with your ‘voting solution, what would the rules for ‘fair be? Those who bring the most compelling content pay the least, I assume. Its a huge, huge problem. I wish your idea would work. I wish something would work. (Meantime, I’m doing pretty good just getting leads from websearchers.)
Friday, December 19, 2008 by Philip Stoten:
I agree with many of the comments and would like to share some recent experience I have had in other industry sectors. We have been asked recently to shoot video at a few trade shows outside the electronics manufacturing sector and have, as a result attending and been involved in the organization of these events. The shows in question were what one might call congresses that is to say they were more about the conference and the information exchange than about the exhibition. Both had plenty of delegates, plenty of interesting papers, round tables, educational activity and plenty of opportunity to network and debate – all the area everyone seems to value highest in an event. Neither had a huge trade show floor, neither had big budget booths, and neither had exhibitors wondering what they had spent all that money on. They were both very focused on the baby and not on the bath water. They did both have a modest trade show floor, providing meeting space, information booths (mostly shell scheme) Both organizers had done a great job in adding value wherever they could this included awards, where appropriate, some really creative programming and the use of video and other allied online activity to further extend the reach of the event, in both time and geography. In fact at one event more than 140 papers were recorded and made available online, on demand. At the core was a compelling conference program targeted at a specific audience! Perhaps equally importantly, both events are financially viable, making solid revenue for the commercial organizers. Ok, they did not make the revenue for the venue or all those contractors that will charge you $500 to rent at $600 TV for a week, but they did make money and seemed to add value for the exhibitors. It seemed exhibitors and delegates got to spend the money only where they found it important – sending presenters, sending delegates, modest info-booth space, program sponsorship, etc I like this kind of show concept, and I like the way it was delivered in these two instances. I wonder if this may be the way forward, with less emphasis on the big budget booth, where much of the money is spent outside the industry and on items that cannot be proven to add value for customer or supplier.
Monday, January 5, 2009 by Rick Short:
An article I read today here http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/2009-01-04-electronics-trade-shows_N.htm?csp=34 says: Jason Oxman, senior vice president at the Consumer Electronics Association, which stages CES, says that even in the downturn, companies that are cutting back arent eliminating CES altogether. Like Cisco, they’re just eliminating the convention floor booths and opting for meeting room suites instead. Trade shows take on renewed importance in a down economy,” he says. Every major consumer electronics manufacturer, buyer, installer and retailer is there. It’s the most efficient travel saver imaginable.

Leave a comment





Captcha