TSMI's Trade Show Marketing Report

Applying the Invitation-Only Conference Model to Existing Events

Invitation-only tech conferences have been around since at least 1989 when IDG created its DEMO series.

Given the track records of these types of conferences, I continue to be surprised we haven't seen more invite-only events in non-tech fields.  Don't the same rules apply?  Are not enough investors and journailsts interested in the latest medical technologies or building products or food service gadgetry?  Are these products not "sexy" enough compared to computing applications? 

Maybe they aren't.  Certainly one advantage the tech industry has is the "two guys in a garage" model of development.  Many software and hardware innovations don't require huge capital to get a working demo up and present a business case.  Other industries, particularly medical, typically require siginificant up-front R&D investment and trials before one can present a compelling case.  And tech innovations usually have a wider audience than vertical industry innovations, thus a wider appeal and more opportunity for profits.

On the other hand, new ideas in every industry are out there.  So maybe the answer is that organizers just don't know how to find these innovations.  Perhaps that's because non-tech industries haven't self-identified appropriate gurus/advocates/prophets/evangelists the way tech industries have.  People who can pull the appropriate audience together, identify the true innovations and provide direction for the content and presentations.

These types of people:
TED = Chris Anderson
DEMO = Chris Shipley (originally Stewart Alsop, then David Coursey)
PC Forum = Esther Dyson
and now,
Gnomedex = Chris Pirillo
Supernova = Kevin Werbach

For the most part, these events have been successful from the get-go.  A couple of similar events (Showcase [Red Herring], Agenda [IDG]) went under after the internet bubble burst, but you could say they were more imitators than originals and would have become superfluous anyway.

Besides the fact that you might want to look for someone named "Chris" to run your invitation-only conference, what other factors should you look for or develop besides a great host?

In a recent post about the differences between attending the "corporate" JavaOne conference vs. the "dining room" ambience of Gnomedex, Jeff Barr notes the contrasts. 

Intimacy - being a good party host and making the appropriate intoductions - is certainly important.  The food, parties, and networking opportunities are common among all of the five shows mentioned above.  However, Gnomedex, as more or less a true "grassroots" event, may not be the best model to follow for your purposes.

Of the five invite-only events noted above, you could say three are solidly focused on helping companies refine their business models and attract investments.  Each of them, to varying degrees, also open up the possibilities of partnerships with other computing platforms and application developers.

Since the VC model is easier to understand, here's one thought about how you can learn whether an invite-only event is for you:  Consider adding a forum for small companies looking for investment and/or mentoring at your existing big show.  It's in your best interest to grow these "little guys" so they become big exhibitors.  And if you can do this well, you might find you have something you can grow into a separate event.

Often these small companies are looking for more than just meeting potential customers.  They're looking for investment capital.  They're looking for advice.  They're looking for a home-run customer. 

So in addition to helping them with pre-show marketing and making sure they understand the ins-and-outs of exhibiting, why not create a separate forum within your event that exposes these new products to the investment community and mentors who can help them grow.  It's a win-win.  Plus it'll help your event grow a reputation for promoting innovation - which should, in turn, help you attract more small exhibitors and more CXO level attendees who will come to examine the potential opportunities and threats these new players present.

I'll add that we have recently seen a growing number of "executive conferences" - higher ticket exclusive events to discuss trends at a CXO level.  But these events are often single-sponsored by a huge namebrand and don't do much to introduce innovative new companies and processes to attendees.

I think there's an opportunity here for many of you to explore.  I'd be interested in talking to organizers who are looking in this direction.  Or, if you have, and didn't proceed, why not?

Two Guys Walk Into a Bar...

And 164 others follow on their heels.

This is another example of how Web 2.0 is changing models on meetings and content delivery.

Hugh McLeod took a shot at organizing what he labeled a "marketing soiree" in London.  Just an informal get together to share ideas and do a little networking.

The Free Prize Inside?  None other than Seth Godin.  For only £20 which includes a fajita buffet.  (fajitas in London?)

Within a few days mention of it was here here here here and other places.

Are experts in your community magnetic enough to pull these types of "soirees" together on short notice?  Are they willing to do this?  Are your constituents willing and able to promote what you're doing to their contacts? 

If so, what's holding you back?  If not, shouldn't you be looking in this direction?

EXPO Survey: Behind the Numbers

This week EXPO Magazine issued results of a financial benchmarking study they conducted with Exhibit Surveys.

FuelDog provided their take on the EXPO report findings yesterday. 

Here's ours:

44% contribution may sound good to the outside world.  But it ain't what it used to be.  A mere decade ago I was running marketing for events with contribution ratios over 70%.  Some were deflated along with the internet bubble.  Others were later convicted in the court of public (exhibitor) opinon for price gouging.  Oops. 

But events with 70% contribution were the exception.  We know this because EXPO did us the courtesy of also including a link to their 1999 survey.

Let's compare:
                                     1999*        2005**
Average show size:        194,128    a lot less***
Average # attendees+:      24,635      15,456
Average $ revenue:    $2,715,019  $2,733,700
Average % gross profit:       47%           44%
Average $ per sq. ft.:       $16.04       $24.15

+ Avg. number of attendees at respondents' LARGEST shows, not all shows
* yeah, I know that $16.04 x 194,128 = $3,113,813 (and that's not counting sponsor and reg revenue) but these aren't my figures. Blame Skip Cox. (note: I like Skip).
**reporting for 2005 was different than 1999, so had to do some extrapolating here.
*** if my extrapolating is correct, seems to be in the 94,000sf range.

On the one hand, you could say that over the past six years an investment in the average trade show performed worse than a garden-variety passbook savings account.

On the other hand, maybe this is progress after all.

Throughout the past decade, even before 9/11, our industry was being right-sized by our markets.  Just as water seeks its own level, exhibitors and attendees were seeking alternatives to the one or two big shows per market solutions we were offering.  We responded by flooding the market with verticals, usually at the expense of someone else's behemoth.  Sometimes we even cannibalized our own big events. 

The shows that survived are smaller, but as a whole, stronger.  More nimble.  More responsive.  More valuable.

As I'm sure you've noted by now, the one number that's gone up in comparisons between this year and 1999 is average price per square foot.  We've been levying an average annual price increase of $1.35 per square foot on our customers every year since 1999.

I found this surprising.  I would've thought the annual "let's see if we can get away with this" square foot increase would've been squashed by the right-sizing trend.

And maybe it finally is.  EXPO reports that the price increase between 2004 and 2005 was a mere 4.9%, which comes to about $1.15. 

Which means we just saved our exhibitors twenty cents a square foot.  Without lifting a finger.

Now that's progress.

Exhibitor Blogging at Conferences

Is exhibitor blogging the next trend?

Tyson Foods to Blog Hispanic Convention.

Makes perfect sense.  If you read the background you'll see that this is more than just a promo stunt, although there's no denying the marketing benefits.  Especially when your CEO is also the event keynoter.

And hey, they've got a Flickr photo set, too!

But no trackbacks... so Tyson will probably never know that we've just cited them as a pioneering trendsetter in trade show communications.

Ross Predicts Future of Podcasting

Yeah, I know what you're thinking.  Another post on podcasts.  Who cares?  Where's the tradeshow news?

Humor me for me a moment.

I own a Creative Zen.  Got it for my birthday.  I've also done a couple of podcasts, so I have an idea what those are all about.

But I've never listened to a podcast over my Zen.  I have tried a few online.  I'm not a big fan, yet.  Audio quality can be iffy, people talk fast, and I'm usually doing something else while listening.  For me, podcasts require too much attention.  Probably more attention than I'd spend on an audiobook.  I think that's because audiobooks use smaller words and don't introduce strange new concepts.

Ross Mayfield thinks we won't have to worry about all of that soon.  He suggests that the ideal delivery vehicle for podcasts may be the phone. In something like 1-minute spiels.

I've said it before, I read Ross because I feel I get smarter doing so, even if I have no clue what he's saying when I come across passages like this one:

At Supernova, Linda Stone went beyond explaining her concept of continuous partial attention to suggest that in such an overloaded world, value will shift to shared experiences with dedicated attention.  This would be mostly true if it weren't for our newly discovered power to participate in the Power Tail and rise to the Fat Head.  One powerful social incentive is stardom, which the Odeo disco taps into nicely.

I think I get it... I don't listen to podcasts now because I can only afford partial attention (if that), but I would be more willing to listen if I felt it important to know what others in my circle got from the podcast, meaning a "shared experience with dedicated attention."

Nice to know that being a Fat Head can be good.

Ross goes onto suggest that ringtones are a possiblity for short podcasts (podbursts?) as well.

You're imagining something like, "Hi, this is your CES keynote speaker, Bill Gates.  Answer your damn phone already!"

But the practical application might have merit.  It may not be all that different from the mass phone calls we do now as part of attendee marketing campaigns.  Rather than us making the call, we'd use speakers or even attendees to offer a quick take on something that will go on at our event that you don't want to miss.

The phone and it's VoIP incantations will be the interface of choice.  Uploaders will evolve into clients as caches with the dynamism of web clients.  iTunes and iPod will have to join the two-way web.  You will cast audio messages to your groups, they will listen when convenient, and social signals will help you find your deeper voice.  A version of audio comments will provide deeper feedback, you will want to limit access to it for sake of time, and suddenly phone tag may become fun.  The best messages will be remembered, tossed around and perhaps, with permission, bubble up to cultural consciousness.

Which also implies targeted vioce messaging/podcasting.  Which nobody is doing, as far as I know... so at least you got one practical idea for reading this far.

I think.

BPA On Audits

Melinda Kendall from BPA commented on yesterday's post about Newsday and the Audit Bureau of Circulations. 

I thought her comments were important enough to put them in here in a separate post.

Keep in mind that although I suggested our industry still has sleazy operators who might not be above trying to fleece an auditing company, I remain staunchly supportive of audits as I have been since serving on the initial advisory board for Expomark a decade ago.

Here's what Melinda had to say:

Rich, we who are involved in event audits appreciate your continuing coverage and interest in audits. To clarify the situation regarding the potential for fraud:

1. Do keep in mind that it was the ABC audit that caught the Newsday fraud. Without audits, fraud is going to be more prevalent and rarely uncovered, corrected, and punished. Audits aren't perfect, but they do significantly reduce deceptive practices.

2. The type of fraud committed in the Newsday example WOULD be caught by the audit processes and standards currently in place in the event industry. The industry guidelines created by the Event and Exhibition Industry Audit Council (EEIAC), already followed by the primary event auditors, BPA Worldwide and Exhibits Surveys, mandate contacting a sample of attendees and other tests that would be much more difficult for the organizer to defeat than you assume.

3. The key to the discussion is that WITHOUT audits, which is still the case with the vast majority of events, it takes considerably less work than you outline to deceive exhibitors. As exhibitors start to realize this, organizers need to be reviewing their practices.

4. The scary lesson for event organizers from the Newsday case is that exaggerating audience numbers is fraud, and fraud is a crime. This needs to be a wake-up call!

Thanks MK

No, thank you, Melinda!

FM Publishing, Syndicators and the Threat to Media Companies

If this seems a bit arcane to you, my apologies.  I hope you'll follow along... this post is targeted to execs at the media companies who run trade shows.  But it's worthwhile reading for anyone in our industry, since we'll be affected too.

John Batelle (co-founder of Wired, Industry Standard and 30 other mags web sites) is launching a new company called FM Publishing.  Batelle's goal will be to aggregate "high authority" blogs into an advertising network. 

If it works, FM would allow high-profile individual bloggers to maintain their existing advertising (if any) while also benefitting from new ad revenue streams. 

In other words, the individual bloggers who have established solid footprints in their markets won't have to disappear because they can't afford to blog.  FM may make it possible for blog for a living.  So the popular blogs may be here to stay for as long as they wish.  Attrition will happen with blogs, but only the weak will fall away.

Still with me?

While Batelle says that FM will initially focus tech bloggers since that's where the most traffic is, he does plan to branch out.  Marketing/brand blogs would probably follow.  By the time he gets around to verticals like medical and manufacturing, communities from those industries will also have attached themselves to grassroots blogs from respected opinion leaders.

Once it gets out that bloggers can actually make money, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that bloggers will start popping up in every industry.  Resulting in an expanding network of bloggers paid through ad revenues from FM - and likely competitors.

Which in turn means ad dollars spent on blogs won't be spent elsewhere.  Like in print or online.  It's doubtful show budgets would be affected, but perhaps directories and ancillary ad products might take hits.  Heck, many show managers may start pulling out of print media and start advertising on blogs.  I would.

Aha!  You see where I'm going with this now, dontcha?

Are Sponsors Muzzling Show PR?

This would be another for the "WTF" category.

Tim Bourquin is facing a dilemma on his new show launch:  Whether to turn down a $15,000 sponsorship or accept terms which allow the sponsor to approve every single press release where Tim includes the sponsor company name.

In other words give a sponsor control over show messaging.

Seems to me Tim has to give up the money in this instance.  Give an inch, take a mile, etc.

The sponsor apparently hasn't said anything about being mentioned in a show blog or in other marketing copy.  Just PR.  For now.

Tim has asked if this is common.  I've neither experienced this dilemma nor heard of anyone else.  But I figured I'd ask all of you to see if this sort of "PR-Uberfuhrer" attitude exists with your shows or if you've heard of instances where show management has acceded to the sponsor demands vis a vis PR or marketing messaging.

Let us know!

Brookings Debunked?

Sue posts on a press release from megacorp Conferon Global Services that suggests the tradeshow industry is indeed healthy.  At least healthier than reported in January's much maligned Brookings Institute Report.

It's nice for Bruce and Dave to share that with the industry.  After Conferon merged with ITS and ExpoExchange I personally didn't think we'd ever see them share anything for free.

If You're Doing a Newsletter for Your Conference, Why Not a Blog Instead?

The Corporate Blogging Blog reports that The Human Resources Professional Association of Ontario replaced their conference newsletter with a blog just prior to their last convention.

Tara Hunt, who was responsible for HRPAO's blog, has offered her thoughts on the process at Marketing Watchdog Journal in an article titled "Conference and Corporate Blogging as a Marketing Tool".

In the article, Tara gives the background of the association's goals and thought process regarding the transition to a blog.  Of greater interest is her capsulations of "What Worked", "What Didn't Work" and "What We'd Do Differently", the latter of which points out that if you build it, they won't necessarily come - you still have to promote and educate people on the medium. 

And as HRPAO found out, you probably don't want to go down the road of having a blog sponsor if your goal is to reflect the needs of all of your constituents.

It's a very interesting article and one that may apply to numerous professional societies and associations.  Give it a read and let us know what you think.