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.

You know you’ve done a great job of creating a loyal audience when fans of a television show have their own convention. It looks to be part NBC promotional stunt and part brilliant idea of Scranton, Pennsylvania to capitalize on a hugely popular show’s regional office “based” in their city.

Either way, it’s fascinating.

I’ve always talked about how not being from the tradeshow business helped me build my tradeshows because I was always looking at things without thinking of how they “should” be done. Some of my weird ideas about what would make tradeshows better have worked out surprisingly well. Others have resulted in me saying to myself, “Well, now I see why no one’s done it that way before…”

Granted, lots of people don’t really understand how tradeshows work (how many of you organizers out there have heard the question, “So what do you do the other 360 days of the year?”). But I’m always on the lookout for ideas from people who aren’t in the business because they always provide a fresh perspective. A blog post about the re-design of the standard conference badge is an interesting read for anyone who badges their attendees.

At 38, I think I’m getting old. Case in point - I get more annoyed these days by how people dress for business events. My uniform for tradeshows and conferences I attend or speak at is typically a suit but no tie. It’s professional but not too uptight. It also tends to fit in with whatever anyone else is wearing so that I don’t feel overdressed talking to an exhibitor, for example, who is wearing the logo collar shirt and khakis.

Now, I live in Southern California where we dress more casually anyway, but the picture below drives me nuts. Notice the guy in the green t-shirt and flip-flops.

Are you kidding me? This conference is one my friend Rafat Ali from PaidContent.org is producing today and the photo is from the reception last night. This conference has some of the biggest names in media attending with nearly all of the speakers at the CEO level. Now, I’m probably going to find out that the guy in the photo who looks like he should be at the pool is “so and so - who just got 8 million in VC funding for his Web 2.0, social networking for houseplants startup” but for crying out loud - put on a sports jacket once in a while.

We get about a half-dozen calls before our tradeshows where people are asking what they should wear and my answer is always the same - business casual at the minimum. Perhaps I’m old-fashioned, but I still like doing business with people who dress appropriately for the situation. I think it says something the pride they take in themselves and their business.

In the past week, I’ve probably lost two exhibitors because I wouldn’t make a speaking spot quid pro quo for taking a booth at the show. It’s a very difficult decision, especially for a small company like ours, because every penny in revenue counts. But my belief is that if we take the stand now, even if it causes us pain short-term, it will increase the value of the event for our attendees, for our exhibitors, and eventually for the company when we sell in twenty years.

When attendees say they only come to an event for the networking, and attend the conference only sporadically or not at all, that’s a problem. When exhibitors say they only speak at tradeshows because a booth doesn’t give them a return, that’s a problem.

The conference content should be a major reason for an attendee to come to the Expo. A booth should return enough value for an exhibitor that it’s worth doing even without speaking in the conference. That’s the way it is suppose to work and if it’s not then we are doing some wrong and changes need to be made to make it so.

In some sense this is a philosophical decision - I don’t want to be in a business where I am stuck producing lousy content that I don’t feel good about promoting and selling to my attendees. But I also believe it’s a good business decision that 10 years from now I know I’ll look back on and be glad I made it. But right now, it’s costing us dollars and it makes me nervous.

Quoting one of my favorite movies, Wall Street: “You can’t get a little pregnant, son”