Slashdot Mirror
Doc Searls On Fixing Tradeshows
zachlipton writes "Almost everyone seems to have a love/hate relationship with tradeshows, the giant geek, suit, and vendor gatherings put on by a handfull of corperations. Doc Searls writes in this month's LinuxJournal on his suggestions for fixing tradeshows. The problem, as he puts it, is that traditional shows make two assumptions: 'what matters most is helping vendors sell stuff to customers' and 'knowledge flows top-down, from speakers to audiences.'"
And I eventually had to say "please don't send me!" I hate those shows.
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
The biggest problem I have with trade shows is that they ask you to pay to be marketed at. Why aren't the booth holders and keynote speakers paying to have a captive audience? Oh, they are? Someone is getting rich off this scheme.
the perlBOF was the best thing at the LinuxWorldExpo! waah and they didn't have one this year! knowledge was flowing all over the place and speak listen relationships were bijectional at the least
T-Shirts, software, trinkets, etc etc etc. It's the only reason to go to Comdex anymore.
No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow. - Cmdr. Susan Ivanova
One of the most interesting things about these events is who pays and who doesn't, and how. With IEEE conferences pretty much everyone bar the chair pays, speakers included.
At most trade shows there are four groups of people
1) People who are "interesting" speakers so get in free
2) Vendor People who have paid for a booth and are damn well going to speak
3) People who the Vendors want to buy stuff, who get one or more of tickets, flights, hotels, food & booze paid for
4) People & companies who want to learn stuff so they pay to go.
Tradeshows are 100% about selling, without that bottom line the rest of it just wouldn't happen. You must realise that there are people who need to earn a living and its really the people in group 3 who matter at these events.
So your target is to get into group 3. There are various ways of doing this but the main ones are
1) Be an influencer within a large SI, this way the vendors get large bang per buck. An influencer (e.g. architect, account manager etc) can steer many projects your way
2) Have a decent sales ticket item that is coming up to tender (not out to tender or its a conflict)
3) Be a one vendor shop, standardise on a given vendor then screw them for freebies. You can also get great freebies from other vendors by pretending you are going to move.
These are the key ways to get in free. One thing to say about these tradeshows is to collect the business cards. If you have an issue with some software then its always great to be able to email someone senior in that organisation with the problem. Most of the time they just pass it on with the phrase "sort it" on. Which means you get the top man helping you out.
Tradeshows work, but they work in a commercial environment where vendors are looking at 6 and 7 figure deals... this is not about the cheap stuff.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
I felt that the article was trying to turn comdex into a usenix conference. Totally different beasts and enjoy each for what they are or are not.
I've seen my share of different tradeshows. And by different I mean all possible (and unpossible) types of trade shows. I'm a magician with trade shows as my speciality. That means, I've made it my business to make entertainment suitable for the tradeshows. And, I have to say this, be it a geeky tradeshow about the newest gadgets or a lingerie show about sexy underwear, they all look alike . After a while, I never see the products (unless I'm at one of the two types mentioned above ;) - all I see is the same kind of booths - the same setup - the same people. I agree with the article that the general idea of trade shows needs to be upgraded to the new millenium. The only difference I see now and 10 years ago is, that the women hired as eye catchers are wearing lesser clothes. Other than that, it's status quo.
Underholdning.info
I agree with you, but the post implies that in trade shows top down means speakers to audience. Who are the speakers in that context? They are the vendors who are selling stuff. So in that context, maybe it is better to have information flowing customer->vendor too?
Someone mentioned bringing the g/f along -- it was nice when I could bring her, but some (most?) bosses like to put more than one employee to a room.
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
The top down paradigm is beginning to shift. In "The Future of Competition", Prahalad and Ramaswamy point out that even with our world of infinite choice, customers still are not sastified. They claim the problem is the top down paradigm. The solution from their point of view is getting the customer involved in the value-creation process. When the customer is actively involved in some aspect of the product, the payoff for the customer in satisfaction is far greater.
There is a range of services avaiable now that allow the the customer to get involved. Ranging from Dell's online site to Opensource development projects. Dell's site enpowers customers to consult with their geek friends on parts and then pick those parts (or at least a semi-reasonable approximation...maybe) and have the box shipped to thier homes. On the other end is Opensource where the consumer can become heavily involved in the value-creation process up to the point of becoming the producer. Essentialy, "If you can contribute or do better by all means go for it."
The Point: Communities of consumers provide strength in numbers for information collection/dissemination and voice. There is power when a customer knows what they want. When approaching a firm who says, "Maybe you want this", the customer can confidently say, "No, I know what I want" or "I'll get back to you in a minute" (then whips out communicator and consults with said community).
Doc Searls's article is an example of a customer wanting to expand a communication channel between producer and consumer in a way that would allow the consumer to add to the value creation process.
While top down will always be around, there are changes continuing to occur that go beyond "the firm spoon-feeding the customer" setup.
From Geek getting an MBA...I'm sorry (Ugh, I'm unclean, I need a bath)
Every once in a while, I actually take the pains to read the entire text of a license before pressing "I Agree". Sometimes, I'm quite shocked about what I read. There are (were ?) clauses in the Microsoft .NET CLR that prevent you from publishing profiling results of the CLR. I think this is stepping the line. BTW, I am not an MS basher - I'm sure there are many other companies doing the same thing. I was also bothered by the fact that we have to tear the shrink-wrap agreement (thus agreeing to a license) before being able to read the license agreement. I heard that some software also makes you agree to a non-disclosure clause on the terms of the license !
So, I was wondering, why not have a trade show where only software that have obvious terms in the licenses (not necessarily open source) are allowed. The license should be available to the public (maybe as a pamphlet or website), so that everyone (not necessarily customers) knows its details before making a purchase. I don't like anti reverse engineering clauses, but I can agree to them.
We could have different sections, depending on the various categories of licenses (open source, not open source, anti reverse engineering, cheat-'em-and-steal, etc.).
Trade shows are just flea markets with a homogenous clientell with a few perks like interesting speakers to teach you. Flea markets are all about selling stuff, meeting interesting people, and having a good time (I've been to some where a local band is actually performing). If you don't like them don't go, but the "problems" described in the summary (I'm not wasting time on the article) are not problems and any attempt to "fix" them will kill the show.
Where else will I be able to do the following all in one place:
Find cool products
Talk with knowledgeable sales reps
Be educated by a leader in the field
Network with other professionals
All of that for one low price!
If you don't like flea markets don't go, but don't try to kill the fun for the rest of us.
One great non-hierarchical way to run a conference is known as Open Space. I went to a 1000-person conferenc that organized about half the sessions this way and it was fantastic.
The way it works is that everybody who's interested turns up in a big room. A facilitator explains the deal, and then anybody who has an idea for a session they want (whether they want to talk or just listen) writes it on a big sheet of paper, announces it to the audience, and sticks it on the wall. Next they pick a time and room slot from a big list of post-its and stick that on their session title sheet. People who are interested in attending write their names on the sheets.
And basically, aside from some simple rules, that's it. At each session, whomever turns up turns up. Somebody generally volunteers to take notes and put them on a Wiki.
This sounds like it could be lame, but it was fantastic. There was minimal vendor waffle, lots of interactions, and very little bullshit. For me, the most valuable bits of a conference always came outside the sessions, at meals and in the hallways. This organized and distilled those encounters. It was great!