WARNING: “The trade show industry is not innovative” is a blanket statement. Yes, there are pockets of new ideas. Yes, there are individual shows and organizers who are trying new things and taking risks. But, for the most part, as an industry, we have been doing the same thing, the same way for the past 50 years.
I realize that the term “innovative” is overused. In many ways it should be banned from the vernacular (or at least all press releases). However, that doesn’t excuse an entire industry which is clinging to the same business model, infrastructure, programming, floor plan design, metrics, and look (pipe and drape) for half a century. And here it is important to note: Getting a mobile app for your show is not innovation.
Here are some other tell tale signs that this industry, our industry, the industry we make a living in, is lagging behind on the innovation curve:
- The love/hate relationship we have with virtual/live hybrid events that represent the first breath of fresh air we have had in a decade for growing an audience, building on killer content, and saving a buck
- The fact that we just can’t seem to crack the code for bringing down the costs to exhibit
- The knowledge that we depend on a monolithic infrastructure of organizations, buildings, and business practices when the rest of the world is nimble, on-demand, customized, peer-to-peer, DIY, community-based, intimate, and virtual
- The news that large industry suppliers continue to expand their offerings beyond trade shows, buying up competitors, and re-branding themselves rather than living within the self-imposed limitations of the “trade show” industry
- The fact that some of the best innovation is NOT coming from the industry. It is coming from citizen innovators filling a void
- The mounting evidence that innovation in content marketing, social media, and digital marketing is eating away at the corporate budgets previously reserved for trade shows
- The realization that there has been virtually no increase in the number of shows in the U.S. in a decade
Why should we innovate?
The expectations from our stakeholders have changed. Attendees want trade shows that are transformative—personally and professionally. Exhibitors want clear evidence that trade shows are superior to other marketing mediums (not just that they have can achieve ROI from trade shows in general). Sponsors want an immediate, measurable rush of attention/leads/interest from attendees. To deliver these results we can no longer have attendees lumbering through the aisles, exhibitors unable to afford or understand how to effectively exhibit, and sponsorship opportunities that don’t keep pace with the real world. Being unable to innovate in AT LEAST these three areas makes our industry vulnerable. As the next generation comes in and the current one moves out, the current situation will only worsen.
Why don’t we innovate?
It all begs the question “why?” If we accept that the trade show value proposition is still valid, why are we flat lining? As an industry, do we not value innovation? Is the investment in infrastructure so large that we can’t innovate? Are we so overwhelmed by 9/11 and the Recession that we are afraid to risk? Do our customers and members have too little appetite for innovation? Are we married to the “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” ideology? Are we earning too much to care about innovating? Do we think we’re innovative when, by the rest of the business world’s standards, we really aren’t? Are we afraid that true innovation will reveal structural deficiencies that we would be unable to overcome? Are we still using the publishing industry as a template (should I mention where newspapers and some print publications are now?)… Are we analog, when we should be digital?
Although there are those that argue for the need to ”innovate or die,” I’m not convinced of the advantages of innovation for innovation’s sake. However, I do know that companies and industries that are characteristically innovative also happen to be earnings leaders and job creators—think Apple computers.
The Takeaway: Innovation does not necessarily mean technology adoption. All the apps in the world will not save an industry whose value proposition is muddy. Innovation requires a concerted, transparent, industry-wide effort to examine the current business models, consider the competition (other marketing mediums), differentiate, address the structural weaknesses that keep the industry from growing, think out loud, experiment with new business and pricing models, deploy new technologies, and be open to change. It is in our collective interests to tackle these problems together. What are we waiting for?
Michelle, great questions here! I think the bottom line is that the medium to large shows are still highly profitable. The risk to make massive change is huge.
We’re going to see significant shifts in spend moving from the show floor into other areas of visibility at a show or conference. Major shows that are working one on one with significant exhibitors/sponsors to develop custom opportunities (that may not include a booth) will help the slow move of innovation.
The price for space is peanuts. The total cost of booth design, set-up/teardown and personnel to work the show is huge. For most exhibitors they either need to see a ton of their existing customers and grow those relationships or they need to walk out the door with a huge fist-full of A and B leads. If not, the investment can end up on the chopping block during budget season.
I appreciate your emphasis on value Michelle as it probably is going to be the engine of innovation. It certain is in corporate product offerings where the most successful innovations usually offer some transformative value: the iPod lets us carry our entire music collection in our pocket, something previously that was unfathomable.
Perhaps that is where some of the conversation needs to focus: what would be transformative value in the trade show industry? What are the challenges or aspirations of the audience for trade shows that could be addressed in new and previously unimaginable ways?
I grow weary of what I call the “booth bribery” conversations that focus on how do we get people to go to more booths. Some of the most successful innovations often result from starting with a very different set of assumptions and/or a new set of constraints and then exploring what might be possible. What would those be for trade shows?
Dave and Jeffrey:
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. I guess I would like to see more “hacking” in our industry–the practice of deconstructing everything and seeing how it can be put together differently, more efficiently, and more inclusively. I see an industry of elites forming–large exhibition organizations, large exhibitors, large contractors while the attendees (the critical component in the equation) who are not generally of this industry in their “day” jobs have so many other alternatives for making purchases, networking, and learning about new products (the top three reasons to attend). Jeffrey I think you hit on something critical–an examination of the value proposition for attendees now and in the future. I would like to see the innovation discussion start/continue there. It could be less painful.
–Michelle
Wonderful insights.
In reference to virtual/hybrid: it’s an early inning but tis baseball game is on a clock, so the industry will be well served to embrace transformative innovations sooner than later. Technologists have been leading the discussion until recently. There is definitely growing embrace of the category, and while there is not silver bullet, the capacity for virtual and hybrid to scale and measure face to face event marketing activity is critically important. Without scale and measurement, real strategic measures employed on an industry wide basis, the industry will not keep capture dollars going elsewhere at this time.
The attendee: I am in violent agreement with you on this point; Actually most every point you made Michelle. We need to look at it from an attendees’ perspective, more than a show organizers perspective, exhibitors’ or contractors’ perspective. Without the attendee in a healthy state of engagement with trade shows, nothing else matters.
I do think large shows, cities, service providers, and industry organizations have a responsibility to lead a movement toward positive change. I know more than a few of them who are trying to do so and with varying degrees of success.
Face to face is the most powerful media on the planet. No question. And I am prpud of the value we as an industry deliver. That said, it’s time to scale it and measure it so the attendees and marketers who pay for it readily and consistently see the value in their investment of time and resources in it.
Thank you Tony. I was hoping to spark a discussion and I got my wish. What we need to do now is start collaborating, putting specific ideas out there and getting our own momentum going. Are there any show organizers willing to weigh in?
Michelle
Michelle,
Excellent, thought-provoking post. And I have just the solution. I think. Perhaps Event Camp should spawn off a trade show focus area, whereby the Event Camp event itself is configured as a trade show innovation lab (a la Event Camp Twin Cities and the innovations they’re leading). Attendees, exhibitors and presenters are invited – and it’s done in an experimental sort of way, where we try to figure out where trade shows should be headed.
On a related note, I recently read the book “Switch: How to Change Things When Change Is Hard” (which I’d recommend) and one tactic the authors recommend is to find the standouts and analyze what they’re doing to be successful. Then, try to apply their successful tactics more broadly. So on that note, do you have a reference trade show that is, in fact, innovating? Perhaps we should study it.
Dennis Shiao
@dshiao | @INXPO
Dennis:
I read your comment a couple of days ago and rather than immediately respond that I think it is a fantastic, brilliant idea, I began thinking about what that EC-style trade show focus area would look like and who we could get and what types of innovation we would consider and on and on and on. What I keep bumping up against is where to start. Should we collectively make a list about what needs to/could/should change? Do we break it up into sections of innovation, i.e. innovation on business models, innovation on floor plan layouts, innovation on infrastructure? Do we start a LinkedIn group to get some discussion going first to get our bearings? Is there already a group that is hitting on these points? Should we even define innovation first?
In short, I love your idea. Where do we go next?
Twitter.com/futuremeet
An invigorating discussion underway sponsored by PCMA, IAEE, ASAE, Freeman and Gaylord
That is brave leadership that encourages transparent dialogue- always the most productive in my view.
Check it out…
Michelle, sorry for the lag in my response, but I think I can add some value here.
A) I just got back from an industry event (in my world). We proactively worked the list prior to and during the live event and exited with scores of highly qualified opportunities. The value proposition for face to face meetings, especially high-level conferences where the attendee is decision maker or at least champion level is very, very real. You pay for access and if you do the hard work pre and during, you can derive quite a bit of value. So, I’m a big fan of meetings.
B) Event innovation should focus on the mobile/tablet without question. It’s not because of all the neat 2.0 stuff you can do on it or the personal schedule builder you can create and touch-screen through. Those are all good advances that make it easier for people to meet and get the most out of the event. So they are good. But if I were innovating in the event space I would focus on the advent of NFC technology and how it can be optimally paired with augmented reality and social media applications. This will take time because the first NFC equipped smart phones are just starting to roll out now – so it’s no quick fix – article on uses of NFC here http://info.topcoder.com/blog/bid/37426/NFC-Technology-and-the-Impact-Beyond-Mobile-Payment
NFC is such a nice technology for the event world because unlike scanning a QR code that takes you to a site where you still have to complete an action (QR codes are often glorified urls – though I’ve seen some more advanced uses for the tech.), NFC enables the action instantly. What could that action be? A Facebook Like, Twitter follow, a check-in, a subscription to a newsletter, a payment, and more. Pair this with NFC enabled badges (worn by the attendees) and the ability for folks to scan the room, and see in real-time who they are next to, walking past and you’ve got a powerful identifier that negates the navel staring that takes place today.
Imagine scanning a digital attendee list prior to the event via the web. You have the choice of ranking attendees green, yellow, red (red being a hot prospect you’d love to me) – then on site, through a mobile aug. reality app. paired with NFC tech. embedded in the badges, people can scan the room they are in, identify the “red level” aka hot prospects they really want to speak with and introduce themselves.
Granted – any conference goer worth their salt is going to make their list of folks they NEED to meet weeks in advance and most likely reach out to those individuals prior to the event. But say in addition to those efforts, this type of technology allows you to make the very most of every given situation, every room, every coffee break you find yourself in. Even non-invasive advances, – your phone vibrates when you are near a “Red-Level” would be worthy – this way you avoid the need to constantly have your phone/tablet up to your face, might be nice.
I feel the focus has to be on the most important reason people attend meetings and that is to create new opportunities by meeting the right people. All else is secondary. Even with all these advances, uptake will take time, it’s just the way it goes. But it doesn’t mean you don’t push the needle.
I’d venture that current aug. reality technology can get this done today without NFC, but I’m not completely sure on that. Nice post Michelle, be good !