TSMI's Trade Show Marketing Report

Who Needs Brand Anyway? Pulvermedia Expands to Financial Markets, Resurrects the Old DCI Everything Under the Sun Model

I thought I knew something about brands and branding.  But I don't have millions in my bank account like Jeff Pulver.  So it's hard to say what I'd do in a millionaire's shoes.

Don't know about you, but when I think of Pulver, I think of one thing and one thing only: VoIP.  That's it.  He's the Mack Daddy of that sector.

While it's somewhat easy to understand his getting into events and publishing to capitalize on the emerging market he created, what gives with buying up financial conferences?

I suppose if you're going to hire Jason Chudnofsky to run your show organization, you can't expect to sit still.  But I would've guessed international expansion of the VoIP and like properties, not glomming onto a whole different industry like banking.

Thing is, Jason's had a hankering to get into the finanicial market for years.  He'd already done his due diligence eight years or so ago when Softbank threw a concept called "Comdex Wall Street" against the wall.  It didn't stick.  I had actually interviewed with Jason for the show manager job on that baby before opting to stay with Internet World.

Nothing against Jason, he's a smart, entertaining and interesting guy who's full of energy and ideas.  But this purchase just doesn't make sense to me.  It seems incongrous to the Pulver brand.  Do you understand it?

And what's this with the six shows in one venue.  Jason, you should know better.  Your neighbors up in Andover drove that model off a cliff years ago. 

Then again, what do I know.  I make panini, coffee and cannoli fillings for a living.  I just don't see major players in the financial arena being impressed that a company known for VoIP is now running their industry conferences.  Not saying pulvermedia can't succed, I just don't understand the move.  It doesn't track. 

Your thoughts?

UK Follows US Lead, Cancels It's Major Gaming Show

What more needs be said?

Disintermediation, baby.  Lots of ways to meet the market on the market's terms w/o spending on booths (or booth babes, as the case may be).

Btw, loved the IAEM response to E3's recent downsizing as published in the August 7 IAEM News & Industry Report (members only).  Yes, that was a grand argument about video gaming being only a segment of the "Sports, Travel, Entertainment, Art and Consumer Services" sector as defined by the Center for Exhibition Industry Research (CEIR)," thus not indicative of a trend in trade shows in general.

Who said it was?  Nobody would think so.  At least not until they hear IAEM's argument... then red flags about show expenditures might start popping up.

But IAEM's argument in defense of large shows only went South from there...

"The CEIR Sports and Games sector is the largest sub-sector of the entertainment industry. The hottest sub-sector in entertainment was video and computer games in 2004, and that is expected to continue on a strong growth path."

According to PricewaterhouseCoopers' "Global Entertainment and Media Outlook: 2005-2009," online games will surpass PC games to become the second-largest category in 2006 and will reach $3.8 billion in 2009, representing a CAGR of 42.2 percent. Wireless games will be the fastest-growing sector, reaching $2.1 billion in 2009, growing at a 49.3 percent CAGR."

And what does any of the above have to do with trade shows?  Nothing.  Industries can grow as large as they'd like without the need for a big industry event.

This is a one-off Mr. Hacker.  E3 just wasn't needed.  The market said so, despite your prostestations.  That doesn't mean the world doesn't need MAGIC or CES or SEMA.  It just doesn't need a huge gaming show at the moment.

The market has spoken.  Unfortunately, so did IAEM at a time when it might have been best to keep silent instead of proferring a position that holds less water than my kitchen colander.

E3 Fallout: LA Figures Millions in Lost Revenue in 07-08

When you bet large on convention business, you lose large when large conventions pull out or downsize.  There's simply no way to replace the lost revenue overnight.  Or even within a year or two.

And that's what officials in Los Angeles are realizing in the wake of the E3 downsizing announcement.  An event that brought in $19 million in tourism revenue this year will now likely bring in much less than half that next year.  And it's expected it'll take till 2009 to fill the hole E3 has left.

Meantime, a July article in the Sun-Times that we missed when first published aims to prove that Chicago's convention business is much healthier than has been reported.  Interesting read with some interesting - and underreported - data on Chicago.

Bowling for Federal Dollars

Seems Senator Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) has a bone to pick with the Pentagon over the types and locations of the conferences staffers attend.

Coburn said the Pentagon sent 36,000 military and civil service employees to 6,600 conferences worldwide last year at an average cost of $2,200 per person. "Of interest is that of those 6,600 conferences, 663 were held in Florida in the middle of the winter; 224 were held in Las Vegas, and 98 in Hawaii," he said.

Half the conferences, Coburn contended, could have been conducted through digital videoconferencing and saved money. "We're in a war. We're having trouble funding the war," he said.

Can't speak to the Florida issue, but having been to Hawai'i, we noticed an awful lot of military installations there, beyond just Pearl Harbor.  Seems fair to think that with some 40,000 or so military on the Islands they'd be hosting a few meetings.

Then there's this tidbit at the article's close:

Among the meetings that received Pentagon support last year were the Armed Forces Bowling Conference in Orlando, the Bowling Managers Expo in Las Vegas, the Armed Forces Golf Conference in West Palm Beach, and the Craft and Hobby Association conference in Atlanta, according to the briefing paper.

Who knew the military were such bowling fans. 

On the one hand, this is just another story about a politician looking to make some headlines for the folks back home.  On the other hand, I wouldn't want to be running an event in Florida or any other resort setting this winter that is highly dependent on Federal attendance.

Agreeing to Disagree on the Fate of Large Shows

In the wake of the E3 announcement:

This morning Bob Scoble says large shows are dead.  53 people (as of right now) have chimed in with their comments.

It's about split down the middle with half the folks saying large shows are indeed dead - generally because the internet offers alternatives - and the other half saying that the trend applies to tech shows (or only E3) and not mainstream expos.

The arguments in support of both sides are pretty good.  Read the comments for yourself.

We can only hope our associations are listening.