Macworld Expo happens at the end of the month, and I’m being asked every day by PR people to meet with companies at the show. This year, with very few exceptions, I’m restricting my meetings to exhibitors only. I thought I’d explain why.
[ad#Google Adsense 300×250 in story]For several years now, even predating Apple’s well-publicized exit from the show, there’s been a trend: companies have pulled up stakes from the show but they’ll rent a suite in a nearby hotel and encourage press people to meet for a presentation. This isn’t unique to Macworld Expo by any means, but it’s certainly happened a lot to this show.
I’ve heard all the reasons for why companies don’t want to get a booth: the cost of exhibiting is too high; the perceived return on the investment isn’t worth it; and so on. I understand and appreciate a lot of the explanations I’ve received.
Unfortunately, every half hour I spend in a press briefing like what I’ve just described becomes an hour away from the show floor. Even if the suites are in the hotels next to the Moscone Center, where the show is held, I have to transport myself to and from the hotel. There are only so many hours in the day that the show is open, and so few days that the show happens.
All of that becomes a bit unfair to vendors who are actually paying for booth space to appear at the show.
It’s also a bit unfair to IDG World Expo’s management team – the group that puts together Macworld Expo, for whom I have a great deal of respect and admiration. Not participating in the show directly but expecting to reap the benefits of exposure is, from my perspective, more than a bit parasitic.
So my message to vendors is simple: If you want to meet at Macworld Expo, get a booth. I promise to see you on the show floor and give you my undivided attention.
Obviously each company needs to decide for themselves whether the value in participation is there. I certainly understand economic pressures and the landscape of marketing software and hardware to the masses has changed. But from my perspective, if you’re asking me to meet and you’re not actually exhibiting, we might as well do it by a teleconference before or after the show. It’s Macworld Expo, and the people actually participating in the Expo deserve the attention.
As an aside, I’m not scheduling a lot of meetings on the show floor, either. (if you’re one of the many PR people I’ve told that to, it’s not just you – you’re in very good company.) And that’s because I absolutely, positively want to make sure to spend time talking with booth vendors – I’m The Loop’s sole representation at this year’s Macworld Expo, unfortunately, so I want to make sure I spend as much time as I can with the people with whom I’m most interested in talking.
I think this is more than fair and very respectable way of doing business. You are there for the show and the vendors that have invested their time and talent into the show deserve to get what they came to the show to get.
I can understand if one of these companies that you reference, who insist on nearby press breiefings, wanted to move their announcements to right before or after the show (then it is up to you and your company if it is worth justifying another day on the start/ end of your trip) but doing so in the middle of the valuable show time is just not fair for everyone. There is nothing illegal about it per se, its a decent strategy, but ethically the show belongs to Macworld.
I respect your integrity in this matter 🙂
Respectfully, I couldn’t disagree more.
You cover the news of the show. You can’t pick and choose the news based on whether or not they have a booth. It’s not *your* job to decide if they are worthy of an interview based on whether or not they have a booth. They are worthy of the interview based on their information, not location.
I agree that going off site is a PITA. but you can easily say, “I’ll meet you on the show floor.” That’s what I do.
Show floor not convenient? Lots of coffee shops, restuarants, bars, pubs to meet in around Moscone. Hell, meet outside while having a smoke – I’ve done that.
Bottom line is, it doesn’t matter if the company has a booth or not. The key should be, do they have something newsworthy and of interest to The Loop’s audience? That being the case, you report the news, regardless of how much money they have or haven’t spent on the show.
If everyone wants to meet “just outside the show” you end up not having enough paying people to have a show. I think yours is a good move and that more journalists should take a stand and do the same.
Well said. It’s pretty sad that people expect the attention while trying to avoid the entrance fee.
As he said, though, those people could just as easily be relegated to a videoconference before or after the show. He’s taking a moral stand. You don’t agree with it. That’s your right. Personally, I applaud the man.
Thanks. I don’t necessarily see it as taking a stand as much as planning my logistics thoughtfully. I simply don’t have the bandwidth to spend a lot of time outside the show. But secondarily I think people on the show floor deserve the face time. And to your point, you’re absolutely right – enough people cop out of exhibiting and MWSF will disappear. That would suck for everyone.
I don’t care how much money they’ve spent. I’m simply weighting the very limited time I have at the show in favor of the companies that choose to participate.
Also, whatever are you going to do now that you’ve quit smoking? 😉
“those people could just as easily be relegated to a videoconference before or after the show.”
But, by that logic, the press doesn’t even have to go to an Expo. I’ve always maintained that, journalism-wise, you don’t *actually* have to attend a show in order to cover it.
Again, it doesn’t matter *where* the people are at Expo. If they have news and information worthy of your listeners/readers, you cover it. Journalism isn’t always convenient. 🙂
I understand that. But you are making a value judgment on their participation. That’s what I disagree with. As “journalists”, we are there to cover the news – full stop. Not to decide what is newsworthy based on the booth or lack thereof.
I plan on starting again just so I can do those interviews. 🙂
I have to agree with Peter. Of course, I’d be tempted to tell them, “Buy me lunch and I’ll meet with you when I’m not on the floor anyway.” But then I’d probably be eating at Macworld, not out somewhere else.
And accepting a free lunch is, of course, the start of the slippery slope downward to ethical grayness.
Good for you Peter for being fair to the people paying to be at the show, and for making the most of your time, so that we see what’s at the show.
The rest of them know where to contact you.
Shawn, with respect, you’ve built a straw man argument.
I never said or even implied that I would blacklist a non-participant – that I would refuse to cover newsworthy announcements simply because they were made by non-exhibitors. What I’ve said is that with few exceptions, I’m not *planning to meet with* non-participants.
At least bring weed. Will certainly make the interviews more interesting. 😉
nonsense. You cannot cover an expo without being there. You can cover *announcements*, you can cover companies that choose to talk to you, and you can analyze what you are told by other people. But you cannot, on any level, cover *Macworld Expo* without being *at* Macworld expo, because there’s more to Expo than press releases and the like.
Deciding you don’t need to be there and can still cover it accurately leads you down the path that Farhed Manjoo and others are: “If it’s not interesting enough to make it out of the show, then it doesn’t matter.” There’s a lot of smaller companies, or people who are note- and news-worthy at any show, be it Macworld, CES, or the Macon County Tractor Pull who will get drowned out by the noise from the bigger participants.
Look at the crap coming out of CES from people who weren’t there. Compare it to what you found by being there.
Tell me again you can properly and fully cover a show sitting a thousand miles away.
I can understand companies not wanting to have a booth since it ties up people watching the booth (an empty booth can look bad.)
One of the things we do at a conference I help with is allow vendors to pay the vendor fee and we give them a half-hour session to present on their product (only restriction we have is they can’t present on products that don’t work in the environment, i.e. Windows only versions of things at a Mac conference.)
They don’t have to have someone at the booth, they still support the event, and people interested get to attend a specific time for a much longer time than just a booth visit. They don’t need extra people to just watch the booth for few leads.
Also I assume they can purchase advertising of some sort (in an onsite agenda or on the web site) to support the event without just getting a booth.
I applaud your decision… you stubborn, bald b@stard! 🙂
I think the people who pay the bucks to be on the floor deserve to get first coverage and thorough conversation. Once that’s done, the rest can send their PRs and demo units and whatever else for review.
Hi Peter. I’m looking forward to seeing you at our booth, #28 in the Mobile App Showcase (look for the big-screen display). We’ll be highlighting our popular Art Authority app, for iPad, iPhone and Mac. (I’m not sure if you were expecting comments like this one, but, especially since I couldn’t find your current email address, I figured it was worth a shot 🙂
Unfortunately, no it won’t. Weed just makes me sleepy. Don’t need sleepy at Expo!
Not trying to be a PITA…really wondering. If you’re taking this stand out of some kind of ethics, then why are their exceptions? (Again, not trying to be argumentative…perhaps there’s a very good reason for the exception.)
“You cannot cover an expo without being there.”
You’re saying a journalist has to be *at* an event in order to cover it adequately? Hundreds of people do a very good job covering Apple events without being there. I don’t need to be physically in front of someone in order to interview them – I do very good interviews all the time via the telephone. Are you saying those interviews would be better if the subject were sitting next to me?
“There’s a lot of smaller companies, or people who are note- and news-worthy at any show who will get drowned out by the noise from the bigger participants.” Agreed – and they can get drowned out regardless of whether they have a booth or not.
“Look at the crap coming out of CES from people who weren’t there.” And look at the crap coming out of CES from people who *were* there. Attendance does not mean excellence in journalism.
All of this gets away from my point – which is, a journalist should not base their interviews or decide the newsworthiness of a product or announcement based on whether or not the company has a booth at the show they are attending.
For example – look at the 15 interviews I did at CES. Can you tell me, just by listening, which of those companies *didn’t* have a booth at CES? Would those interviews have been any different if the company *did* have a booth at CES? I would argue no to both questions.
The central problem I have with Peter’s argument is this:
“All of that becomes a bit unfair to vendors who are actually paying for booth space to appear at the show. It’s also a bit unfair to IDG World Expo’s management team.”
It’s not our job as journalists to decide whether a company is being “fair to other vendors or to IDG” – our job is to report on the event and its newsworthy aspects.
For example, what if a company had a booth but wasn’t being “fair” (however you want to define that) to other vendors (they have a really loud booth that bothers other vendors, for example) or isn’t being “fair” to IDG (they won’t pay IDG a fair price for the booth)? Do those folks warrant an interview, simply because they have a booth?
I guess the issue is the slippery slope nature of Peter’s argument. I’m not saying he would (I know he wouldn’t), but it’s not a stretch to say, “I won’t interview anyone unless they have a booth of x size because that’s fair to IDG…”
(Good discussion, BTW)
If I understand the issues here, the distinction between both sides in this argument is whether or not a journalist cares about supporting the trade show which makes vendors available for coverage in the first place, whether those vendors directly support the show or not.
Which leads me to ask whether it’s considered a journalist’s responsibility to support a trade show whose continued existence could be jeopardized by vendors who avoid the show itself but attempt to capitalize upon its audience.
“Event” in the generic sense, no. But I didn’t say “event” I said “Macworld Expo”, “CES” and the “Macon COunty Tractor Pull” which I made up. Although it’s probably real. Not everything is the same. Some events are structured in a way that no, you don’t have to be at them to properly and fully cover them. For example, you don’t really need to be in the room at a presidential press briefing to cover it. It’s a single event of short duration that is so totally documented, that the room could be nigh-empty, and it would not make a demonstrable difference.
Macworld Expo, like CES is not that kind of event. Pretending it is that type of event is intellectually dishonest.
“You’re saying a journalist has to be *at* an event in order to cover it adequately? Hundreds of people do a very good job covering Apple events without being there. I don’t need to be physically in front of someone in order to interview them – I do very good interviews all the time via the telephone. Are you saying those interviews would be better if the subject were sitting next to me?”
Are we talking an arranged interview with someone contacting you ahead of time to arrange the time and place? Then no, there’s no difference. Are we talking an interview of someone who you may have never heard of or vice versa, but happens to have an interesting product or concept, and you just happened to stumble on them because you were both in the room together? In that case, absolutely. Just like all events aren’t the same, all interviews aren’t the same. You’ve had rather a few “aha” interviews in the past that you wouldn’t have gotten without being in the room.
“”There’s a lot of smaller companies, or people who are note- and news-worthy at any show who will get drowned out by the noise from the bigger participants.” Agreed – and they can get drowned out regardless of whether they have a booth or not.”
To be drowned out, you technically have to be able to be heard in the first place. If no one is able to listen to you, you’re not drowned out, you don’t exist. There’s a difference. If you’re in the room, yes, they can be drowned out. If you never hear of them at all, not drowned out, but nonexistent.
“All of this gets away from my point – which is, a journalist should not base their interviews or decide the newsworthiness of a product or announcement based on whether or not the company has a booth at the show they are attending.”
Which was never peter’s point. He made no comment on the newsworthiness of a product whose vendor is not exhibiting. Nor was his statement an absolute. He’s rather clear on that. As well, your point is weak here. If you are covering *Macworld Expo*, then people expect you to do that, not cover “yet another product meeting in a hotel room”. To turn your statement around a bit, a real journalist can trivially get good stories out of Expo for 4-5 days without having to go to hotel rooms to talk to companies who are, in a real sense, vampiring off of Expo. They get all the benefits of Expo’s presence, the audience, and the concentration of ‘press’ in the city, yet contribute nothing whatsoever to the event. Why should a company behaving, literally, in a parasitical manner be rewarded for it?
“The central problem I have with Peter’s argument is this:
“All of that becomes a bit unfair to vendors who are actually paying for booth space to appear at the show. It’s also a bit unfair to IDG World Expo’s management team.”
It’s not our job as journalists to decide whether a company is being “fair to other vendors or to IDG” – our job is to report on the event and its newsworthy aspects.”
Nonsense again, and in fact, you do this all the time. You ignore pretty much every newsworthy event outside of your audience focus. I can think of no less than ten “newsworthy” events you ignore per week. Why? Because they aren’t newsworthy *to you*, and it is therefore safe to assume they won’t be newsworthy to your audience. As an example, you have completely ignored the Java issues between Oracle et al, or very nearly ignored them, in spite of the fact that they are quite newsworthy….just not to your audience. You, and everyone else, decides “what is newsworthy” all the time, and you do so unilaterally, sans explanation.
If someone decides that for that week, they are going to mostly ignore people who aren’t at Macworld Expo when reporting on Expo-related issues, that is EXACTLY as valid as you ignoring the upcoming end of IPv4 address space, and the problems that a wholesale move to IPv6 might cause.
“For example, what if a company had a booth but wasn’t being “fair” (however you want to define that) to other vendors (they have a really loud booth that bothers other vendors, for example) or isn’t being “fair” to IDG (they won’t pay IDG a fair price for the booth)? Do those folks warrant an interview, simply because they have a booth?”
How many times have you blown off interviews because you thought the vendor was a bitchy prat collective? How is that any different? Do you explain why you ignored one vendor to talk to another one? Rarely, because people expect you to make those decisions. Your basis for said decisions is no more or less valid than Peter’s or mine.
I know for a fact that most of the readers of my site and my columns like to play games. But I’d rather eat glass than talk about games, and that’s not why anyone reads my stuff anyway. I have my audience, and I *absolutely* pander to them in rather a few ways, including the vendors I talk to.
“I guess the issue is the slippery slope nature of Peter’s argument. I’m not saying he would (I know he wouldn’t), but it’s not a stretch to say, “I won’t interview anyone unless they have a booth of x size because that’s fair to IDG…””
The slippery slope argument has become such an exercise in lazy thinking. It applies only to a specific sequence of events, and, you can’t call it a slippery slope until you have at least two examples. one example is a point. To make a slope, you need at least two points. It applies in everything else as well as it does in math.
What if Peter NEVER does that. What if he keeps his “who do I talk to at expo” filter exactly the way it is? Then you don’t have a slippery anything. What if peter says he’ll only talk to vendors who provide him girls who fondle him? Then you have someone in immediate need of an MRI, as they are obviously having a stroke.
You can’t say, well, not without looking foolish, that a single decision is a slope. You have to wait and see where they go with it.
As I hope I’ve made clear by now, my primary reason for doing this is logistics – every minute I spend away from the show floor is two minutes I can’t spend with booth vendors. I’ve attended Macworld Expos since the early 90s and I know that’s where I want to spend the most of my time, especially since I’ll be covering the show solo. The ethics of it are secondary, but important to address.
“What if peter says he’ll only talk to vendors who provide him girls who fondle him?”
All right! NOW we’re talkin’!
Interesting that this “behind the scenes” item was posted. I find it interesting. I certainly agree with the logistics reasoning. I do hope your secondary reason (supporting the show vendor) is flexible. There are some shows where exhibit space sells out, and many more vendors might have wanted a booth, but could not get one. I’d guess that is not a current problem Macworld Expo is facing, but (hopefully, for them) it could be in the future.
To me, this is the crux of the issue. It’s really just a math problem. Coverage of an event … a trade show like Macworld Expo or CES is about the event. The heart of that event is the show floor, the conference, and the keynotes. The heart of the event is the priority for at least the show hours. And, like I said, it’s a math problem.
There’s a limited amount of time for everyone … journalists and attendees … to be on the show floor. As of this writing, there are 222 exhibitors listed. Even if you assume that only 150 are worth looking at, and If you assume 30-40 min of non-productive time a day during the show hours (e.g., bathroom, walking, phone calls, etc…), you have about 22 hours … or about 8 minutes per. In some cases that’s more than enough — in other cases, it’s nowhere near close.
Clearly, in the days surrounding, evenings, breakfast, and more, there’s a bunch of opportunity to meet and see other folks and if wanted, cover them. But, the priority with such limited time for a journalist during show hours needs to be on the floor. It’s what’s fair to exhibitors, to show organizers, and to the readers.
And, for those not partaking in the event, they can reach out to media the other 362 days of the year.
There are some exceptions to this — but I agree with Peter. It’s always been our way to limit set meetings both on and off the floor in favor of making sure to cover everyone on the floor as the priority. At least that’s the way we’ve been doing it for years (MacTech and MacNews).
If a company doesn’t exhibit, they aren’t part of the show. Period.
I don’t think making a show succeed (or fail) is a journalist’s responsibility at all. IDG World Expo are big boys and girls – they can make this show work or not without my help.
But at the end of the day, I’m one guy covering a single event the best way I can. For me, it makes more sense to stick close to the venue and to try to keep my schedule as flexible as I can so I can cover what’s being shown and meet with vendors who I wouldn’t otherwise get a chance to talk with.
Not true. Period.
To be honest, that second paragraph makes more sense and is more clear than your entire article.
As you said, He covers the news of the show. When you latch on to the show with a nearby hotel suite, you are most definitely not “news of the show.” And as Jim explained, he doesn’t have time going from hotel to hotel and will end up missing news of the show.
Those vendors that don’t want to go tot he show should simply schedule their announcements at a different time.
Oops, meant to say Peter, not Jim.
How can you say they are part of the show, when they don’t attend? That’s like saying I’m part of CES because I have a tech company and live in Las Vegas.
I said no such thing. Donald said, “If a company doesn’t exhibit, they aren’t part of the show.” That’s patently not true. I did not say that if they don’t attend, they are still part of the show. That may be you misreading what I wrote.