I’ve attended a lot of keynotes at tradeshows and conferences and unfortunately, most are disappointing. It’s unfortunate because when someone has the spotlight for 45 minutes or an hour, the opportunity is often wasted on Powerpoint slides or they simply make it a long commercial for their company.

There are a handful of times I have been absolutely engaged by a speaker. Steve Wynn, of Wynn Las Vegas, kept about 250 us riveted for about 90 minutes a couple of years ago at the Society of Independent Show Organizer CEO conference. Without a single Powerpoint slide or notes, he walked on stage and talked about how he built his empire. It was fascinating.

But few people have that magic ability to capture the attention of an audience for that long. I think it’s truly a gift.

It doesn’t mean that most speakers are uninteresting – it’s just that they don’t have the speaking skills to convey their thoughts well to a large audience. I’m a big fan of Charlie Rose because in the interview format, he’s able to bring out the interesting points from his interviewees – no matter who they are. Most of the time, there is just something more interesting about a conversation between two or three people than a monologue.

Now, I’m no Charlie Rose, but this year I’ve decided to make our keynotes interviews. My goal is to interview the keynoter as if we were having a frank talk in a coffee shop – with the attendees in the surrounding booths listening in. I’ve been interviewing people for several years through our podcasts and I’m getting pretty good at it.

It means a lot more work for me because of the research and preparation I’ll need to do to make this work, but in the end I think the attendees will have a better keynote experience.

Sponsorship levels have been around for as long as tradeshows and I think it’s time for a change. I went to a conference a few months ago that had two Silver Sponsors. Apparently they didn’t sell the Gold or Platinum levels but two companies bought Silver levels and so that’s what they had. Except it looked a bit odd, and I overheard an attendee actually wonder aloud about whey there were two Silver sponsors and nothing else.

I see the reasoning. On paper and in theory the more a sponsor pays, the more exposure they get before, during and after the show. But it’s been a real struggle for us to differentiate all the different levels and show the differences in value to potential sponsors between all the levels. Often times we’d be in meetings with companies who, when faced with the myriad of choices, became indecisive because they had “paralysis by analysis” trying to decide which level to take. Then, once the decision was made, they wanted to pick and choose which items to take, which to leave out and which to substitute. (“We don’t need the banner outside meeting room 312 but we’d really like the dedicated email from this other sponsor level.”)

By the time we were done, the sponsorship didn’t look anything like the original level and was completely custom. That’s fine – most of the time the sponsorship levels are simply a starting point for the conversation and we want the sponsor to have the things that are most valuable to them in the package. But the process has been tedious and frustrating for both parties.

So I decided to totally revamp our sponsorships for 2008 for all of our events. There will be just two sponsorship levels – “Event Sponsor” and “Title Sponsor.” The event sponsors get branding and logos and exposure everywhere for one set price and the “Title Sponsor”, (at a much higher price) actually has their company name embedded into the show name and logo (“New Media Expo presented by ABC Company”). I’m hoping the simpler choice will allow the process to move faster. I’ll keep you updated.

After three years in Ontario, California we announced last week that we will be moving the Podcast and New Media Expo in 2008 to Las Vegas- king of tradeshow cities. I’ve been considering it for nearly two years but wanted to make sure the event had solidified itself as the leader in this new space before we made the jump. The pros and cons of moving to Las Vegas are worthy of a separate post so I’ll address that later.

But this post is about something else I’ve discovered over the past week – the blogosphere is not what it claims to be. My gut has always told me this is so and deep down (another way to describe my intuition) I’ve known it for a long time but only this week have I really seen it in action. Friends and business associates I have discussed this with privately have all said, “This is news to you?” And yet very few bloggers and podcasters are talking about it publicly.

Here’s the issue: bloggers, “powncers” and “twittereres” are moderating their comments not just for spam and foul language, but for honest, legitimate posts that tend to disagree with their views. I knew our move to Las Vegas would not be welcomed by everyone. Most humans dislike change, like routine and it’s impossible to please everyone. As an event organizer you have to research and study what’s best for the majority of your attendees and exhibitors and then make a decision.

I knew our decision to move would be welcomed by most everyone – and it has. And for those bloggers, podcasters, and online publishers that disagreed with the move and posted on their blogs about it, I took comfort in knowing that I had dedicated the next several days to leaving explanations in the comments of any negative posts. I mean the New York Times in countless articles has told me many times to simply “join the conversation.” PR experts around the world talk about “joining the conversation.” After all, the blogosphere prides itself on allowing dissenting opinions to be heard and take part in the conversation right?

Wrong.

In the past four days, most of my comments where I have started by saying, “John Doe- thanks for your thoughts on our move. I understand why you may not like it but here’s why we made the decision so you can understand the background” have not shown up in the comments. I never attacked the commenter or even so much as said “you’re wrong.” I simply offered a more detailed explanation in the comments of their post so that I could offer an explanation of the move, an alternative view or in some cases correct blatant errors of fact (wrong dates of the event, etc).

6 of my 8 comments have yet to show up on these blogs or pownce conversations – blogs that talk about priding themselves on being “transparent” yet are anything but. When I’ve been able to find an email address for the blogger, I’ve sent an email with basically the same comments as my comment in their blog and additional information – not one response yet. It’s happened a few times in the past year but not until this week has it hit home for me that the blogosphere is not about “a conversation” if you want that conversation to happen in the comments. The only alternative is to post the responses on your own blog and link to the posts.

Bloggers have every right to moderate comments as they wish. But the “transparency” of the blogosphere seems pretty opaque to me right now.

I read on the Expo Magazine website (great podcast for tradeshow organizers by the way) that the The American Fly Fishing Trade Association is launching The Fly Fishing Expo at the Colorado Convention Center in Denver, placing it in direct competition with an existing consumer event, The Fly Fishing Show scheduled for the same weekend – also in Denver.

This is just plain silly.

Competition is great in every industry as it makes everyone up their game to the next level in order to grow. I don’t always like it when it happens to me, of course, but deep down I know it will make our events even better for the exhibitors and attendees. But when you try to compete with an existing show in order to kill it by launching it on the same weekend, everyone in the industry loses – exhibitors, attendees and the show organizers. By forcing both exhibitors and attendees to make a choice about which event to go to, you simply fragment your own industry. You also significantly decrease the chances your own event will succeed because you will immediately shrink your pool of potential sponsors and exhibitors who will decide to just “walk your show this year” and see how it is. In fact, you make it a slam dunk to do so because they’ll probably just “pop over” to check out your new show when they have a break from their booth at the competitor’s expo.

Granted, I know nothing about the fly fishing industry and perhaps the Association feels they can pull this off. But at what cost? Do you really want your members to have to decide every year which show to support? The attendees don’t care who wins – they just want to go see great fishing gear. By launching it on the same weekend, you are effectively putting your exhibitors and attendees in the middle of your personal battle and forcing them to choose sides. Not good.

As Gordon Gecko once said in the movie Wall Street, “Showdowns bore me Larry. Nobody wins.” I’ve quoted the movie Wall Street several times -probably because I know every line. But Gordon Gecko would have been a great tradeshow organizer.

Dear Tim,

Thanks for the information about the Expo. Do you think there might be an opportunity (panel or other presentation) for us to “demo” our product in the conference? We find that a straight booth sponsorship doesn’t get us a good return. Thanks.

This is an email I got this morning. I get this email or phone call, nearly word-for-word actually, about 4-5 times per week. And each time I respond politely but directly that I am building an event where having a booth alone DOES work. I’m not sure when it started happening because I’ve only been in the tradeshow business myself for about 8 years. But somewhere along the way exhibitors and sponsors began thinking that the only way to make tradeshows and conferences worthwhile is to pitch their product in the conference.

How is that possible? Do exhibitors somehow track all responses to conference pitches where they don’t at the booth where they should be? Some way, some how – psychologically – speaking at a conference magically makes everything worthwhile. Let me ask a rhetorical question. If you deliver a sales pitch to a session room of 100 people who are angry about it because they have paid to sit there, yet deliver your demo to 2,000 people in the exhibit hall who are happy to hear it because that’s what they are expecting at the booth, how in the world is that somehow better? How could that possibly that make the investment in a tradeshow worthwhile?

It’s not their fault – it’s our fault as conference and tradeshow organizers for letting it get this bad.

I also find myself wanting to push back even more every time I get that email. There is a post coming from me – sometime in the next year (I feel it) – where I announce that every speaker, at every conference we do – will be independent and not representing a company. Instead of getting the marketing guy from ABC Software to teach the software, we’ll get a power-user of ABC Software to teach the class. Instead of getting the CEO of XYZ company to talk about the XYZ industry, we’ll get they independent blogger who writes about the XYZ industry every day to be the speaker. And there is a simple reason why organizers aren’t doing it this way now – because it’s HARD. It’s hard to find those folks and when you do find them, you might have to pay them because there’s nothing in it for them to speak for you because they aren’t selling anything!

But it makes the conference a world better. And therefore more people will pay for it – and I think they’ll pay MORE for it. This is good for everyone. The attendee gets a much better conference. The exhibitor gets a real return on a booth because the quality of the attendee is better, and I get to increase the conference revenue because it’s a better product and more people are willing to pay for it.

Who’s with me?

I’ve been to 6 or 7 conferences and conventions over the past six months and one of the things I have been monitoring is the speaker bait and switch. As a tradeshow guy, one of the most interesting things to me at a show is the Program/Directory Addendum. Here’s where you see the speakers that have replaced the original speakers that were booked.

One switch I see time and time again: Jane Doe, CEO of ABC Company has been replaced by John Q. Public, VP of Marketing for ABC Company. It happens so often, that I’m beginning to think this is an actual strategy used by PR Firms or the company itself to get the person they originally wanted to speak in the first place, but knew darn well the conference organizer would never have approved it. The trouble is, two weeks before the event when suddenly the CEO becomes unavailable, the conference organizer is so busy they have little choice than to accept the replacement. Or, the Marketing guy simply shows up to the panel and says the Founder couldn’t make it.

It’s happened to me quite a bit over the past seven years in the business – so much so that two years ago our speaker agreement was updated to include language that says, in short, “if you cancel – we will find the replacement – not you.” Not surprisingly, it’s almost eliminated the problem entirely. And for those folks that don’t read the agreement or try to push it through anyway? A panel of 3 now instead of 4. More time to talk for the rest of the panel.

Now if you’re a VP of Marketing reading this – don’t take this personally. You were hired for that position because you are great at what you do which is promoting your company. But you just can’t help yourself. The temptation is too great. I understand. But the panel job is for someone else.

I’ve just spent the last two days at a conference trying to write and balance my notepad on my knees because the organizer chose to set the room theater style with no tables. It has become my biggest pet peeve in the conference industry lately.

Attention all organizers: if you are charging upwards of $1,200 for a two day conference I am declaring it illegal for you to set your rooms anything but classroom style! Our highest price point for the Podcast and New Media Expo is $299 and we set every room at least 50% classroom-style with tables. The front half of the room that has tables also have electrical outlets every three feet for laptop users. Does it cost more and take additional setup time? Of course, but your attendees will thank you for it. Conferences that cost a whole lot more have no excuses NOT to do this. If you can’t fit the tables in because you have too many attendees, then you should stop taking registrations.

I’m not naming the conference, because some might consider it a competitor to our own. But just one more tip – if you jam a bunch of chairs into a small room just so you can say there was standing room only, it doesn’t count. Anybody can say you needed an overflow room but that’s not how I judge success. Success = pleased attendees and exhibitors – anything else is just window dressing. At the first Podcast and New Media Expo, our first day keynote had standing room only in a room that held 700 because the keynotes are open to both free exhibit hall attendees and conference attendees. I was stressed big time because several paying conference attendees couldn’t get in and we were unprepared – it won’t happen to me again. Most people would say, “that’s a good problem to have” but I don’t see it that way. When your paying attendees can’t get into a session because it’s too full, that’s a bad problem, not a good problem.

When I attend conferences, I’m always learning. But why does it seem like I always learn what NOT to do instead of what I should do?

Update: Oh, I forgot to mention the pornography at the conference. During the web video screening last night, two of the videos were straight up hardcore pornography. Obviously none of the conference staff had pre-screened what was going to be shown. It was excruciatingly uncomfortable and all I could do was turn to the woman who was sitting next to me and say, “You don’t see that everyday at a business conference.” I saw at least one woman stand up and walk out when the second video started and I wasn’t far behind. Note to self: Be sure to pre-screen everything someone outside the company has picked out to run on our keynote big screens. We don’t need to be competing with the hotel’s on-demand, in-room adult movies.

PaidContent.org, my one and only “must read everyday” RSS feed has an article today that Google has received “initial permission” to provide content in China. Unbelievable. Can you imagine having to get permission from the government to launch a tradeshow, conference or meeting in the USA? Asking permission to launch a content or media website in the USA?

Here’s an early 4th of July thank you to all veterans and currently-serving men and women who protect our freedoms in the USA. Thank you for doing what you do so that we can do what we do.

I love this story in the New York Times. It seems Google wanted to crash the eBay Live convention with an event of their own that conflicted with some of the eBay events. Now, most of us convention organizers have to just put up with companies that choose to throw their own events and take advantage of the work and dollars we’ve dedicated to bringing everyone together in the first place.

But in this case, eBay happens to be the largest advertiser for Google search ads. So, they decided to run a “test” and pull all of those ads. Google decided to cancel the event.

I’m so envious.

There’s been a lot of talk for two years about trying to find CPM (cost per thousand) rates for niche audio and video online. My opinion – don’t bother – CPM is broken for anything other than massive traffic, “everyone-in-the world-visits” sites like Yahoo! and Google. I’ve always said this, but never sat down and explained exactly why – here’s my attempt:

The CPM advertising model doesn’t work for the “niche” sites because CPM (cost per thousand) was designed for large, wide demographic sites like Yahoo! or CNN. Because the demographic is so widespread on those sites, the advertiser uses the CPM model because they know that their actual target market is, for example, only 5% of the audience. CPM is based on the premise that you need to waste your impressions on 95% of the audience in order to get to that 5% you really want to hit.

A niche site targets just that 5% and makes it 100% of their audience so that not one impression is wasted. The old model simply doesn’t fit niche sites. Furthermore, if they tried to use that model, they would be grossly undervaluing their content if they try to compare “apples to apples.”

If I’ve confused everyone enough, here’s a final example to explain my point.

If Gatorade wanted to reach triathletes to promote their new Endurance Hydration Formula, they could certainly advertise on Yahoo! Sports to reach the 2% of the audience of that site who are triathletes and pay $25 CPM. 98% of their marketing would be wasted on the football, baseball, hockey, etc. fans. If Yahoo! Sports gets (just for the sake of round numbers so I don’t have to break out my calculator), one million visitors a day, Gatorade would pay $25,000 for that day to reach the 20,000 triathletes.

If a site like EndurancePlanet.com has an audience of 20,000 triathletes, and tried to use the same $25 CPM, Gatorade would pay just $500 to reach the same exact audience! Yet try telling Gatorade their CPM rate is $1,250 – I’d be laughed out of the conference room! Yet, “apples-to-apples” that’s exactly what they’d spend on a CPM model to reach the same target.

Instead of talking about numbers, the thing to do would be to talk about targets. How much is it going to cost me to reach the exact person I want to reach and ignore everyone I don’t – a CPT (cost-per-target) model – that’s the way to truly compare ad rates across any site. That way, Yahoo! gets paid the same amount to advertise to their one million visitors as EndurancePlanet.com does to reach their 20,000 visitors.

By the way, always thinking of the tradeshow angle, this is exactly how I explain why it costs nearly as much to exhibit at the Podcast and New Media Expo as it does to exhibit at NAB. Their audience is much larger of course, but the attendees at our Expo are 100% the exact target market, while only 5% of NAB attendees are their target.