Friday, January 01, 2010
CES 2010 Press-only Events Mismanagement
I am not usually one to complain outwardly in venues such as this, to spend my time ranting or writing negatively about anything. Time is short and I'd rather my time be spent showing followers the way toward useful, beneficial things. However, this is an exception I must share with everyone who may think the life of someone doing as I do is so charmed.
There are two high-profile events for the press at CES time (the annual January event, the International Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas). These events are not part of CES and the CEA, the organization responsible for CES. They are taking advantage of the fact that worldwide press attends the trade show, so why not capitalize on having them in town and hosting events that will attract their attendance! It's just smart to do so.
Two major events, called ShowStoppers - www.showstoppers.com - and Digital Experience (also known as Pepcom) http://www.pepcom.com/pephome/pephome.html-, invite working press and other relevant parties to an off-site affair held in a large and upscale hotel ballroom. Both hosting organizations are paid by the exhibitors for the privilege of having a small display along the four walls and in rows within the venue.
Why?
The ShowStoppers and Pepcom folks attract these paid exhibitors because they also invite the press and others the exhibitors want to see and be seen by so we, that is, members of the media, can have some short quality time with the exhibitors in hopes that we will report on, favorably it is hoped, these exhibitors' wares. They are there for coverage, primarily. In addition, exhibitors are there to see other invited guests who may be in a position to benefit the exhibitors, perhaps with investment dollars or other business opportunities.
These manageable mini-events are the best way to see the most in the least amount of time and, at the end, our feet don't hurt!
It's a really smart way to, in the span of a few hours, do the most good toward promoting products and services in order to accomplish the goals above. For attendees such as I, it's one-stop shopping. In that short span of time, we get to concentrate our efforts within a small, manageable space, and see numerous exhibitors. At the same time, the hosts ply us with food and drink, and the exhibitors provide occasional swag in the form of products and "tschotsckes" so many of us like to receive. We meet new people, see old friends and new products and make plans for future product review and other coverage. It's all pretty obvious and of obvious advantage to both sides of the equation.
Another benefit of these events is that companies, perhaps new to the industry or on a really tight budget can participate in either or both of these events without actually, officially exhibiting at CES itself, which is a quite costly outing. Besides, at CES, there are many more attendees than we relatively few media types. The expense in manpower and a high-profile booth can be astronomical, not to mention all the politicking that can be tremendous stressors. So, these alternate events are just perfect to accomplish the primary objectives at the least possible cost. That they are so manageable whereas seeing all of CES is impossible even over four days is another advantage.
It should be an easy path for a legitimate media person to gain access to either or both events, and that is why I am writing and ranting here. Yes, it SHOULD be simple - either one is qualified or one is not. After all, freeloaders, ne'er do wells and those who simply cannot, do not benefit the exhibitors should rightfully be banned from any such event. It is inappropriate to allow in someone who merely says he or she should be allowed in. Guests must be properly vetted.
Without this screening process, event hosts could deliver to exhibitors those who would waste their time during the events and worse, those who would steal product, demand to be provided with products that never get reviewed, behave irrationally and unprofessionally, receive products that are unprofessionally reviewed and much worse. I get it. We all get that. Allow in only appropriate attendees.
As regards my own work and qualifications, though I am one who prefers a low-key posture, I am proud to have been around and doing as I do for more than 25 years, having attended many, many, many, in fact, most Consumer Electronics Shows and other related events and tradeshows over those years. I am privileged to be The One and Only Mr. Gadget, owning that "Mr. Gadget" moniker which is MY registered service mark with the US Patent and Trademark office. There is but ONE Mr. Gadget, and I am that one. I am known by my too-numerous-to-count appearances throughout each year on top TV shows in the major media markets all across the US. I review in a high-grade manner a wide range of products and technologies I believe are of interest or should be of interest to a wide, general audience. And so on. I've been around a long, long time and I enjoy a reputation for doing good work, helpful to my audience and to the companies whose products I review and present on TV because I will only say or write what I believe to be the truth. Period. No exceptions. And I don't make waves or cause problems for others. And I am fiercely independent.
When it comes to ShowStoppers events and management, they are a class act, always nice and always professional. When I register for their events, I need only fill in the usual form for myself and, perhaps, a qualified associate, such as a producer or camera person, and we're in. No fanfare and no hassles.
It is the exact opposite when it comes to Pepcom events and to dealing with their management. They know me as well as and for as long as do the hosts at ShowStoppers, but it never fails that filling in their simple form is just not quite good enough. It just is not. This year's CES Pepcom event has been no exception. I registered myself as well as a producer/camera person. The Pepcom form insists on seeing a byline or some other qualifying information. Now, again, the Pepcom folks know me and have known me for many, many years. Yet, despite this, it is an excruciating experience registering my producer. It is not a spouse, friend or freeloader. He would be there to enhance my attendance for the benefit of their paid exhibitors. Of this there is nothing that can be disputed.
In fact, I wrote them that my producer works for ME and that there is no byline for such a position. He helps me by being another pair of useful and appropriate eyes, hands and ears all around these trade shows and other events we attend together. At this CES, he is my camera operator allowing me to produce short "Mr. Gadget® Minute" segments that will be posted on my exclusive Mr. Gadget YouTube channel (http://www.youtube.com/user/mrgadget). In addition, I am, WE are there prospecting, looking for products and technologies for hands-on editorial review throughout the year, just as are the bulk of the other media attendees. Clearly, I, WE, meet the letter and spirit of the requirements for entry to this and similar events.
Uniquely, Pepcom throws roadblocks in our way, so many that is is just a waste of my time. I have been told that they must answer to their paying exhibitors in justifying the invitees. I get that. Certainly my attendance and that of my producer/camera person are exactly, precisely the invited guests those exhibitors are there to see and to be seen by. Yet, Pepcom, apparently, think otherwise.
In my application for my producer, I was crystal clear that this other person works for ME and does not, will not ever have a by-line or credited work. That is not the nature of what I do as an independent contractor. So, email from Pepcom told me the situation was well understood and that his business card, which I supply, would be sufficient. The requested info and PDF of the business card were sent off in email.
The next email was not to be believed. The person who I've dealt with on the several back-and-forth emails in this project replied again after seeing the email with the info requested to say no, that though she had committed to admitting my producer/camera person with the supplied info, she now had to decline the invitation, to rescind it, in fact, to renege on her commitment. So, despite the obvious benefit to all of having me there with my producer/camera person, he is disallowed. With him, I cannot, will not be able to produce on-the-spot segments to cover their exhibitors. It would not be productive time spent for me to attend without him. They know that, and still do not move from this arcane, nonsensical stance. This is sheer lunacy! I will not attend the Pepcom event at next week's CES. I WILL be at ShowStoppers and every one of the other press-only events to which I was invited and to which I indicated I would attend, welcomed along WITH my producer/camera person, and without any hassle whatsoever.
Sadly, I know I am not alone in receiving undeserved short shrift from Pepcom. There are others, some that may not be credible in their scorn, but over the years, I know of others deserving of entrance who were unjustly denied. The issue has been mentioned on a popular national tech-related talk radio show and is the topic of non-public discussion with regularity. Pepcom's events are not held in high esteem by many among the working press. However, few make vocal waves because it is felt that Pepcom events are a necessary evil. I am just so tired of the runaround and the time it takes just to try and almost beg them to allow in a legitimate entrant. So, this is my choice, to get all of this off my chest in hopes that what is happening, unique to Pepcom, will guide both attendees and would-be exhibitors. We all are in possession of free will and free choice. Maybe if we speak honestly, appropriately and openly about the trouble made for us by Pepcom some things can change for the better. I have asked, begged them to stop this harassment, to act professionally and to get their act together. Clearly, they do not care or they would have made these changes by now. As for me, I'm just finished with their nonsense and will not attend nor support them in other ways, that is, unless and until things change. That's my stand.
And so, to those who would wish to exhibit at an off-site event designed to attract press coverage at one of these tradeshows, I say think carefully. Be sure you are going to get your moneysworth. Be sure the event will be welcoming to not only you and your money, but also to qualified media persons and others who would want to cover your product and technology. Be sure the event promoters do not exclude those YOU would want to see and to be seen by.
There are two high-profile events for the press at CES time (the annual January event, the International Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas). These events are not part of CES and the CEA, the organization responsible for CES. They are taking advantage of the fact that worldwide press attends the trade show, so why not capitalize on having them in town and hosting events that will attract their attendance! It's just smart to do so.
Two major events, called ShowStoppers - www.showstoppers.com - and Digital Experience (also known as Pepcom) http://www.pepcom.com/pephome/pephome.html-, invite working press and other relevant parties to an off-site affair held in a large and upscale hotel ballroom. Both hosting organizations are paid by the exhibitors for the privilege of having a small display along the four walls and in rows within the venue.
Why?
The ShowStoppers and Pepcom folks attract these paid exhibitors because they also invite the press and others the exhibitors want to see and be seen by so we, that is, members of the media, can have some short quality time with the exhibitors in hopes that we will report on, favorably it is hoped, these exhibitors' wares. They are there for coverage, primarily. In addition, exhibitors are there to see other invited guests who may be in a position to benefit the exhibitors, perhaps with investment dollars or other business opportunities.
These manageable mini-events are the best way to see the most in the least amount of time and, at the end, our feet don't hurt!
It's a really smart way to, in the span of a few hours, do the most good toward promoting products and services in order to accomplish the goals above. For attendees such as I, it's one-stop shopping. In that short span of time, we get to concentrate our efforts within a small, manageable space, and see numerous exhibitors. At the same time, the hosts ply us with food and drink, and the exhibitors provide occasional swag in the form of products and "tschotsckes" so many of us like to receive. We meet new people, see old friends and new products and make plans for future product review and other coverage. It's all pretty obvious and of obvious advantage to both sides of the equation.
Another benefit of these events is that companies, perhaps new to the industry or on a really tight budget can participate in either or both of these events without actually, officially exhibiting at CES itself, which is a quite costly outing. Besides, at CES, there are many more attendees than we relatively few media types. The expense in manpower and a high-profile booth can be astronomical, not to mention all the politicking that can be tremendous stressors. So, these alternate events are just perfect to accomplish the primary objectives at the least possible cost. That they are so manageable whereas seeing all of CES is impossible even over four days is another advantage.
It should be an easy path for a legitimate media person to gain access to either or both events, and that is why I am writing and ranting here. Yes, it SHOULD be simple - either one is qualified or one is not. After all, freeloaders, ne'er do wells and those who simply cannot, do not benefit the exhibitors should rightfully be banned from any such event. It is inappropriate to allow in someone who merely says he or she should be allowed in. Guests must be properly vetted.
Without this screening process, event hosts could deliver to exhibitors those who would waste their time during the events and worse, those who would steal product, demand to be provided with products that never get reviewed, behave irrationally and unprofessionally, receive products that are unprofessionally reviewed and much worse. I get it. We all get that. Allow in only appropriate attendees.
As regards my own work and qualifications, though I am one who prefers a low-key posture, I am proud to have been around and doing as I do for more than 25 years, having attended many, many, many, in fact, most Consumer Electronics Shows and other related events and tradeshows over those years. I am privileged to be The One and Only Mr. Gadget, owning that "Mr. Gadget" moniker which is MY registered service mark with the US Patent and Trademark office. There is but ONE Mr. Gadget, and I am that one. I am known by my too-numerous-to-count appearances throughout each year on top TV shows in the major media markets all across the US. I review in a high-grade manner a wide range of products and technologies I believe are of interest or should be of interest to a wide, general audience. And so on. I've been around a long, long time and I enjoy a reputation for doing good work, helpful to my audience and to the companies whose products I review and present on TV because I will only say or write what I believe to be the truth. Period. No exceptions. And I don't make waves or cause problems for others. And I am fiercely independent.
When it comes to ShowStoppers events and management, they are a class act, always nice and always professional. When I register for their events, I need only fill in the usual form for myself and, perhaps, a qualified associate, such as a producer or camera person, and we're in. No fanfare and no hassles.
It is the exact opposite when it comes to Pepcom events and to dealing with their management. They know me as well as and for as long as do the hosts at ShowStoppers, but it never fails that filling in their simple form is just not quite good enough. It just is not. This year's CES Pepcom event has been no exception. I registered myself as well as a producer/camera person. The Pepcom form insists on seeing a byline or some other qualifying information. Now, again, the Pepcom folks know me and have known me for many, many years. Yet, despite this, it is an excruciating experience registering my producer. It is not a spouse, friend or freeloader. He would be there to enhance my attendance for the benefit of their paid exhibitors. Of this there is nothing that can be disputed.
In fact, I wrote them that my producer works for ME and that there is no byline for such a position. He helps me by being another pair of useful and appropriate eyes, hands and ears all around these trade shows and other events we attend together. At this CES, he is my camera operator allowing me to produce short "Mr. Gadget® Minute" segments that will be posted on my exclusive Mr. Gadget YouTube channel (http://www.youtube.com/user/mrgadget). In addition, I am, WE are there prospecting, looking for products and technologies for hands-on editorial review throughout the year, just as are the bulk of the other media attendees. Clearly, I, WE, meet the letter and spirit of the requirements for entry to this and similar events.
Uniquely, Pepcom throws roadblocks in our way, so many that is is just a waste of my time. I have been told that they must answer to their paying exhibitors in justifying the invitees. I get that. Certainly my attendance and that of my producer/camera person are exactly, precisely the invited guests those exhibitors are there to see and to be seen by. Yet, Pepcom, apparently, think otherwise.
In my application for my producer, I was crystal clear that this other person works for ME and does not, will not ever have a by-line or credited work. That is not the nature of what I do as an independent contractor. So, email from Pepcom told me the situation was well understood and that his business card, which I supply, would be sufficient. The requested info and PDF of the business card were sent off in email.
The next email was not to be believed. The person who I've dealt with on the several back-and-forth emails in this project replied again after seeing the email with the info requested to say no, that though she had committed to admitting my producer/camera person with the supplied info, she now had to decline the invitation, to rescind it, in fact, to renege on her commitment. So, despite the obvious benefit to all of having me there with my producer/camera person, he is disallowed. With him, I cannot, will not be able to produce on-the-spot segments to cover their exhibitors. It would not be productive time spent for me to attend without him. They know that, and still do not move from this arcane, nonsensical stance. This is sheer lunacy! I will not attend the Pepcom event at next week's CES. I WILL be at ShowStoppers and every one of the other press-only events to which I was invited and to which I indicated I would attend, welcomed along WITH my producer/camera person, and without any hassle whatsoever.
Sadly, I know I am not alone in receiving undeserved short shrift from Pepcom. There are others, some that may not be credible in their scorn, but over the years, I know of others deserving of entrance who were unjustly denied. The issue has been mentioned on a popular national tech-related talk radio show and is the topic of non-public discussion with regularity. Pepcom's events are not held in high esteem by many among the working press. However, few make vocal waves because it is felt that Pepcom events are a necessary evil. I am just so tired of the runaround and the time it takes just to try and almost beg them to allow in a legitimate entrant. So, this is my choice, to get all of this off my chest in hopes that what is happening, unique to Pepcom, will guide both attendees and would-be exhibitors. We all are in possession of free will and free choice. Maybe if we speak honestly, appropriately and openly about the trouble made for us by Pepcom some things can change for the better. I have asked, begged them to stop this harassment, to act professionally and to get their act together. Clearly, they do not care or they would have made these changes by now. As for me, I'm just finished with their nonsense and will not attend nor support them in other ways, that is, unless and until things change. That's my stand.
And so, to those who would wish to exhibit at an off-site event designed to attract press coverage at one of these tradeshows, I say think carefully. Be sure you are going to get your moneysworth. Be sure the event will be welcoming to not only you and your money, but also to qualified media persons and others who would want to cover your product and technology. Be sure the event promoters do not exclude those YOU would want to see and to be seen by.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)