RandomMaccess Exclusive: Best of Show winner looks at Macworld Boston from an exhibitor's point of view
Tuesday, July 27, 2004

[Editor's Note: Macworld Boston is now a memory, but was it a success? While news outlets reporting on the event from hundreds of miles away may be calling it a yawn, many of those who were actually there have quite a different view. RandomMaccess asked Kevin Ford, CEO of Parliant Corporation, to give us an "exhibitor's-eye-view" of the controversial Apple-less expo. In his thoughtful, insightful essay, Ford looks at why fewer doesn't necessarily mean failure, and how a show can be more about the Mac when it's less about Apple.]

Macworld Boston 2004: Define Success

by Kevin Ford, CEO
Parliant Corporation

Attendance numbers

During my career I have exhibited at most of the largest computer shows in the industry including CES and COMDEX. Imagine taking a Mac product to a general computing trade show. With Apple's five percent market share, one person in 20 would have the correct platform to run our product offering. It would become an exercise primarily in qualifying who you want to talk to. Too many people. Too many different back grounds or needs. If our company was offered the opportunity to put our product in front of 10,000 well-qualified prospects who had the hardware and OS platform we wanted, we would jump at it. It would be a dream come true. IDG offered us exactly that. They accurately and honestly predicted the show attendance at Macworld Boston.  We were happy to be there.

The only problem with this show is its legacy. The days of shows of 50,000 attendees are over. If the show were not named Macworld we would all be raving about how successful it was with 10,000 people showing up for any event.

This is not just a Macworld issue. Computer trade shows are smaller everywhere. The Las Vegas Comdex, the granddaddy of computer, shows peaked in 1998 with 210,000 attendees and 1.38 million square feet of floor space and 2,480 exhibitors. Awesome numbers to be sure but it has been in a steady decline since. In September 2002, COMDEX cancelled their shows in Chicago, Montreal and Vancouver. Soon after the November 2002 show, the owners filed for Chapter 11. The November 2003 show had only 40,000 qualified attendees and 550 mostly smaller exhibitors from Asia. That's an attendance of 19% of its peek. On June 23, 2004, show organizers cancelled the November 2004 COMDEX show altogether. Given that trend, Macworld organizers are looking like a very brave and enlightened management group. We should celebrate what we have, not focus on what was.

Location

I have heard more than a few comments Macworld in Boston was less than it would have been in New York. However, I am told that the show attendance in Boston 2004 was not significantly different from New York 2003 where I exhibited last year. Our experience on the trade show floor was that it felt like the numbers were higher because some vendors stayed home so those who were there had fewer booths to split the attendees over. As an exhibitor we were very happy with this. In addition, the makeup of the attendees was different... fewer high end graphic artists from advertising agencies and more individuals and small business owners -- which suits us just fine, as we have a Small Office/Home Office (SOHO) solution called PhoneValet.

Let's talk about Apple not showing up.

Watching from the outside, I have concluded that Apple prefers New York. Apple needs to move hardware. The more high-end hardware the better. It's how they pay the bills; there is nothing wrong with that. It means they should be particularly interested in the big corporate consumers in the advertising agencies in New York.

Apple wants Steve Jobs to get lots of press. Given the preponderance for major networks to headquarter in New York, after a Macworld Keynote, Steve can walk a few blocks to several large news agencies and do interviews the same day.  It’s a great place for Apple.

However, New York is more expensive for show attendees, for rooms, parking, etc . While this is not a consideration for employees of large organizations on expense accounts, it is important to individual users and small business owners. IDG must weigh the needs of vendors such as Apple with the needs of individual Mac users. While most times Apple does a good job of aligning the two, in this specific case, there is tension. Outside New York is better for the little guys watching their expenses.

At Macworld, Apple benefits from a forum to introduce new products and corporate directions, but there are other avenues to do that today, the web being only one of them. The trend for companies who are large enough to create their own events are doing a lot more Web-based, company-sponsored events spread over the year. The relevance of the trade show for large companies' product introductions is diminishing, as evidenced by the general industry decline in trade show attendance. This has been coming for years.

Did Apple really bail from Macworld because it was moved from New York to Boston? I have no inside information but I do observe that it was not smooth sailing to get Apple to the show in New York last year, either. Apple announced they would not be there and held to that position until shortly before the show. Is there a pattern here?

Before we all run off and conclude that conference/trade shows are doomed, consider this: there continue to be many good reasons to attend a conference/trade show. Yes you can watch a presentation by Steve Jobs on a webcast but there are many other excellent speakers who do not have that forum. A room full of interested attendees is still their only venue to impart that knowledge, experience or observations. Many times it is the question period after the presentations that has the greatest worth. Feeling the room dynamics, watching the body language of the attendees and the feedback in the halls after the session are part of why speakers volunteer to give these talks. It will take longer than many pundits think before this kind of human interaction and dynamics will be replaced by electronic alternatives.

It is a fact that the trade show floor space sales help offset the costs of the conference. The trade area is also a nice distraction from the talks and a place to see firsthand how a new product works and, as is typical of the Mac community, an opportunity for the customers to talk directly with the software authors, giving them immediate and unfiltered feedback.

Many reasons have been put forward for the general decline in most computer trade shows' attendance, including SARs, security, miserable flight experiences, etc., but the problem might be deeper than that. Maybe it's because you can see all the new product announcements on the web and drill down to whatever level of detail you desire. While the reasons for large vendors to attend trade shows are diminishing, the reason for smaller vendors is increasing because they can actually get some attention if the larger vendors stay away. Attendees already know about the big players. Big players can create their own media events. It's in the little players where the delightful surprises are had at these shows as evidenced by Parliant being noticed enough to be considered for Best of Show, which I am very happy to say we won. With fewer large vendors absorbing the limelight, reporters' time and ink, the little guys are getting better coverage. I submit that there will be higher quantities of little vendors at future shows, which is of more interest to attendees anyway. If Steve Jobs is right about the many thousands of products available on Mac OS X, then maybe a show at a cost point where the little vendors exhibit in droves will be more interesting than a few huge booths by Apple, Microsoft, HP, etc. We already know about these guys. Let's go to a city where the costs are even lower. The Boston exhibit hall is way bigger than we need; maybe we should consider a smaller, more intimate and less expensive venue. Many exhibitor and attendees tack on a few days to a Macworld show to have a bit of a holiday. Why not have a roving show with a new location each year, where we end up seeing more of North America? I have always wanted to visit Banff, Alberta.

To reverse the general decline in trade show attendance across the industry, what may be needed is for show organizers to adjust to the changing reasons for attendance, and to offer new venues. Perhaps the conference/trade shows sponsored and therefore influenced by a few large vendors are giving way to shows focused on the needs of a community of end users. It's gutsy. It’s hard to give up that show floor revenue but a trade show floor needs an audience. This new emphasis on the attendees' interests and budget will require some experimentation. Some things will flop. Some changes will work. This is the process I see with IDG and Macworld. It's one I am happy to be a part of.

A final thought. Perhaps we are witnessing the emergence of a trade show truly independent of the primary vendor and more focused on the ecosystem of third-party vendors, consultants, and the user community they exist to support. This trend can only be viewed as an indicator of a healthy, vibrant community that does not need to be propped up by the hardware vendor.

It's a good thing.

What do you think? Sound off on this topic in the RandomMaccess Readers Forum and let us know!