I’m racking my brain trying to figure out what can be learned if this story about E3 is true. (Found via Rich Westerfield’s blog - Rich how do you find these things so quickly?

There is some question if it is actually true apparently, (digg says that “Readers have have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate), but even if it is not, we do know that exhibitors have been planning “outside E3 events” for many years.

As tradeshow organizers, we want to grow our events and grow the bottom line, but as exhibitors buy larger and larger booths and sponsorships in order to “one-up” their competitors or even their own splash from the year before, there is the chance that it becomes so expensive they decide to not participate at all. In nearly every single case I have seen where this happens, the exhibitor, rather than reducing their booth space presence or sponsorship, will pull out of the show entirely - lest it be seen as a company in trouble (”Gee their booth is much smaller this year - wonder if they are having problems…”). When in fact, it may be just the company bringing their expenses back into balance in order to show ROI for the event.

We all love to sell those big 150K sponsorships, but we better make darn sure we can help the exhibitor show a return on that investment. If we can’t, perhaps the better thing to do for the long-term health of the event is to sell them a 30K sponsorship year after year that they CAN show the ROI on.

I think that’s the lesson.