ACETA Report Exhibitors

November 2011

ACETA TRADE SHOW SURVEY RESULTS ‐ EXHIBITORS Demographics

ACETA had 86 companies respond to its survey – around 40% of the total 212 companies shown as exhibiting in aggregate across SMPTE, ENTECH and Integrate.

The majority of respondents classify themselves as pro audio businesses (59%) while other major sectors represented were broadcast (19%), lighting (15%), AV display (13%) and staging (11%)

That most respondents were importer/distributors will not come as a surprise, though a healthy 33% are also involved in the manufacture of at least some of their products.

The industry is quite biased to NSW and Sydney as 47% of all the responding exhibitors came from NSW. This result is significantly ahead (+31%) of a population‐weighted result where only 35% of attendees would be NSW based.

The survey examined the five events that take place in what might be termed the ‘extended entertainment sector’ which are: Australian Music Association Convention (AMAC), CEDIA, SMPTE, ENTECH and Integrate. The results found that the relevance of AMAC and CEDIA was limited to a relatively small number of exhibitors with 33% saying that they always (17%) or sometimes attend AMAC and 26% saying they always (10%) or sometimes attend CEDIA

This contrasts with the three remaining events where in excess of 70% of exhibitors said they always or sometimes attend the SMPTE, ENTECH and Integrate shows. As a result this report will be focussed on those three shows.

Satisfaction For this group of respondents satisfaction with the events overall is modest at best. This begs serious questions about the sustainability of these three shows. Only Integrate and SMPTE were able to better the 3.5 mean result on the seven point scale offered to respondents with 4.07 and 4.63 satisfaction ratings respectively. Each of the other events (amongst this group of respondents at least) had more people dissatisfied than satisfied with their experience as exhibitors.

ENTECH : only 29% of the respondents who exhibited at ENTECH indicated a positive view on that experience while 34% indicated that the experience was a disappointment.

2 Integrate: 55% of respondents who exhibited at Integrate reported a positive experience and were satisfied with the event. Around 1 in 5 (21% ) of respondents indicated that they were disappointed with the event.

SMPTE: recorded the least number of dissatisfied respondents (18%). Overall SMPTE was the event that delivered the greatest level of satisfaction to exhibitors, despite it achieving a relatively low response in terms of ‘always exhibiting’.

In general, the more positive responses came from those companies who claim to ‘always’ exhibit at a particular event.

But satisfaction is trending downward…….

This is reflected in responses to the statement Thinking about the past few years, as an exhibitor has your satisfaction with shows risen , stayed the same or fallen. A minority of respondents have found their satisfaction increased (10%) whereas a significant 57% of respondents say their satisfaction has fallen, further undermining the sustainability of the current trade show calendar.

The respondents views tell the story:  Costs increase but attendance levels have continuously dropped.  With sales reps on the road, trade shows are a waste of money and time and the reps get the new models around to the dealers as soon as it arrives in the country.  Too many shows. Cost vs return does not stack up.  Not getting quality visitors.  This year in Sydney there were two major shows (ENTECH & Integrate) which fragmented the potential visitors, and made it impossibly expensive for exhibitors. We only exhibited at one show, as it is too costly to do both.  Fragmentation of the market meaning less consistent numbers at shows.  More expense, less visitors.  There are too many (shows).  Less need for shows, as most clients get all the info they need off the website, forums, etc.  We need a show that brings in the end users (schools, churches, clubs, etc) as these are the real end customers and we never get to meet them.  Too many shows. Not a feasible investment for a manufacturer to come in so many times a year to exhibit to the she client base.  Too many trade shows make for poor value for money invested at any trade show, for all participants.  There are too many for the industry to afford ‐ should be every two years like before.  ENTECH used to be ok, but has been ruined by the competition from Integrate.

Integrate venue has been a turn‐off. Numbers were very disappointing the last two years. May be better next time at Darling Harbour.  A poor return on investment…..better value with other forms of promotion with more tangible results for the marketing dollar.  There are too many shows. The internet has made information available in real time so you are not waiting for a show to see new products.  Meet with mostly the same faces we meet with on a regular basis throughout the year.  They have become a networking experience rather than a product exhibition and we are not sure how to manage this method of event.

3      

  

   



      

Multiple trade shows have split the attendees, so as an exhibitor you feel compelled to show at all of them.

Budget allocation needs to be very carefully thought out when spread over a number of events. We would prefer to put more funding into less events Not enough of the right people through the doors.

Steadily falling attendances mainly. And cost versus returns as a consequence.

Cost v return.

I believe that the Australian industry cannot support the number of shows being run in a market of 21 million people. The only people making any real money are the show organiser, who to a greater or lesser extent cannot attract the entire industry. Next, the cost is nothing short of extortion.

The pressure from our suppliers to attend has increased as other markets are not performing as well as Australia. The quality of prospects at these shows is in the main poor. The organisers do not understand the markets they are trying to attract.

Because of the addition of another trade show (ENTECH + Integrate) and the main fact that our industry has a limited market the addition of an extra show has diluted the base thus attendances have dropped.

The industry as a whole is now confused as to which show to attend, and if they do choose then they are disappointed at the number of companies exhibiting at these shows.

There is much more access to product information on the internet than ever before and therefore customers don't need to visit tradeshows to get first‐hand knowledge of new products anymore.

The return on investment is too low. For the cost, there are not enough quality visitors at the show.

As our company is based in Queensland the cost is way out of line with any financial return. A lot cheaper for us to do an overseas show.

It is the whole cost/benefit analysis. If you took the whole budget for a display at ENTECH, and was given that to perform marketing tasks that are specific to your company, then you would be likely to get more bang for your buck. However, there is a certain expectation within the industry regarding tradeshows ‐ because they are designed to cater to visitor needs, not the exhibitors needs.

Too many similar shows, organisers who put their own agendas before the needs of the industry, lack of consultation, average quality shell schemes, lack of attendees, average location, allowing big stands to block shell schemes, overpricing in general, but especially show freight, rigging, lighting.

Integrate ‐ it appears to have become a good forum for the AV industry.

I like new format of ENTECH. Increasing expenses vs minimal return. Lower attendance of trade shows in general.

We need all the manufacturers, distributors, retailers and other interested parties under one roof and this would create something special rather than all the different shows where the impact is diluted.

More seminars has assisted in attracting the right people.

The show organisers still do not listen to the needs/suggestions of the exhibitors.

The days are gone when we could rely on sales derived from participation in an exhibition which would be immediate and sufficient to cover costs. There are a number of reasons for this. This change has been exacerbated by the explosion of internet shopping and the consequent pressure on profit margins. Even so there is no doubt that some sort of industry get‐together is a good thing. It is an opportunity to network, educated, expose new products on mass etc., however we cannot afford to do more than one every 12 months, preferably a biannual event would be our preferred option.

4 



   

There are 2 reasons for this 1/ the rate of product development in our area doesn’t warrant more regular shows and 2/ the cost is too great to get a reasonable return.

There is very little reason for Australian trade shows anymore. All serious customers attend InfoComm, Messe and/or PLASA anyway. Importers/Wholesalers are expected to bring around new products in person to customers on their release ‐ customers rightly expect that they shouldn't have to wait for an annual tradeshow to see new product.

Shows have a limited number of attendees due to the size of our industry and as such we end up with mostly the same folks attending each time with maybe a 10‐15% variance due to those that can't make it and some new attendees. If we look at the older shows, SMPTE, ENTECH and AMAC in particular, SMPTE will always do well due to the lack of ability for large numbers of broadcast staff to travel overseas to view trade shows, ENTECH and AMAC are seriously compromised due to both significant shifts in the way business is done in the AU/NZ markets and the size and accessibility of OS shows. High profile live production is becoming less of a driver to sales than it has in the past.

Organisers have listened to exhibitors concerns and addressed them resulting in improvements to organisation, marketing and quality of attendance.

Fall in real numbers of attendees.

Current Integrate show is well targeted at our market and attracts a good quality attendees.

Potential customers source information differently. More frequent travel by customers to overseas trade shows. Sydney centric.

The themes are:  Questionable cost vs benefit.  Fragmentation of the market as a result of too many events.  Poor/declining attendances.  Changes in consumer behaviour as a result of the internet or access to overseas events.  A lack of focus ‐ too much show not enough development, networking etc.  Dissatisfaction with organisers, cost, marketing, behaviour.

Again, this goes to the issue of sustainability.

Why do we go in the first place?

Exhibitors indicate that the main reasons for attending any of the recent trade shows was to network and meet new customers (6.27 average on a 7 point scale) followed by the introduction of new products (6.03). These outcomes were consistently more critical to respondents than demonstrating their catalogue (4.55), maintaining contact with their existing clients (5.48) or introducing sales programs (4.44).

When asked specifically Which of the following are major outcomes that you want from a show? respondents opted for new contacts (6.59) and new leads (6.27) ahead of signed up sales (4.51) and networking amongst the existing industry (3.89). Clearly exhibitors are looking for the event organisers to help them extend their influence and reach, yet for a majority of exhibitors this is not being achieved.

The following comments extend this a little further  Demonstrate new products in an environment where the visitors can get a representative picture of the products performance, and where they sit in the market alongside the competition.

5  



Integrate was used as our launch event, we were quite disappointed at the traffic flow and did not see many of the people we already know.

The whole idea of being in a tradeshow is to gain leverage from the opportunity at a cost that is more efficient than what the exhibitor could do on its own. The cost structure of the exhibitions is now so high relative to traffic that large distributors can hold their own events, include airfares and accommodation, and hold the participants captive for a day or so, for very little, if any, additional cost. Accordingly our company is leaning towards / evaluating more dealer conferences rather than participation in shows.

Run training seminars ‐ when you're selling complicated technology product, this is the ONLY way to communicate benefit and value to the customer.

Footsteps and on floor vibe…..

Event satisfaction is clearly based around the number of new contacts (85.3%) and the number of new enquiries (85.3%) an exhibitor has achieved as a result of attending one of these shows.

The measures applied by exhibitors are in fact a combination of evidence: how many new contacts did I make and gut feel. Was I busy talking to people? Were the aisles packed? And other similar assessments were made by exhibitors in relation to floor traffic.

Organiser claims as to the number of attendees are often disputed by exhibitors because it ‘didn’t feel’ like 4,300, 4000 or 5,000 people.

Floor traffic itself is not the answer. Attempts to include school groups or the like will not enhance the reputation of the events or exhibitor satisfaction. Organisers need to deliver on two measures: quantity and quality, and the key requirement is making new contacts with a view to then being able to do business with then over the following months. School groups aren’t going to deliver this and will, in fact, make it harder to interact with professionals on the stand.

Sydney, Sydney or Sydney……

Despite assertions that the existing shows SMPTE, ENTECH and Integrate are Sydney‐centric, Sydney remains the most popular choice for each overall. These was no support for the Gold Coast or Brisbane for these three events and only modest support for Melbourne. Significant numbers of respondents indicated they did not have a particular view while a further group suggested that the events should be placed where there was support from the delegates/ visitors/customers.

This means that we are undertaking these activities in the most expensive market in Australia, which of course impacts on return on investment for attending, and ultimately the ability to continue to fund it year in year out.

Too many events, too often……

The question about how often these shows should be staged resulted in the strong view that there should be a biennial cycle. This was the dominant view (58%) for each of Integrate, ENTECH and SMPTE exhibitors. Support for an annual event was greatest for Integrate (which of course is an annual event) but even then it came from a poor 21% of respondents.

And many respondents advocated that co‐location of all three events, if not more, on a biennial cycle is a way to create a more sustainable calendar. Comments were as follows:

6              

        



Maybe they could all co‐locate and have one major show. Then move it around the country every year.

Co locate SMPTE, ENTECH and Integrate (Note: this was a recurring theme).

The main thing is to avoid unnecessary duplication of shows, as occurred this year in Sydney. Many people thought the co‐location of ENTECH/SMPTE worked well.

Book out Darling Harbour every two years and have all the shows in the 6 halls (adding CEDIA and AMAC) AMAC and Integrate. at least should work together. Also only have Integrate or ENTECH not both.

Agree. I would like to see ENTECH/SMPTE and Integrate all rolled into one. I believe we are over‐subscribed and shows become diluted as a result. Personally I would have more commitment to shows if that were the case.

Integrate + ENTECH One major integrated show for broadcast and AV would be preferable and probably more costs effective.

One show every second year in Melbourne, I think ENTECH Connect is a good idea, if it is managed well.

ENTECH SMPTE Integrate (different order but that same theme) It'll make sense if the organisers are willing to share the pie and profits ‐ which is highly unlikely.

All of them! (Integrate, ENTECH, SMPTE, CEDIA , AMAC) Yes ‐ ENTECH and Integrate. They dilute each other at the moment Co locate (SMPTE/ENTECH) was good. I ran into 2 shows I had not been to previously, and it added a flavour to the mix that was otherwise unexpected. I think it depends drastically however, on the size of the event. CEDIA with the Design Build worked well to make up for the poor size of CEDIA, as did having SMPTE next to ENTECH. It would have been almost a pointless visit to ENTECH otherwise. Integrate on the other hand, with so many distributors begins to get a little large to co‐locate as there are so many stands to get around already. With its increasing size it may or may not work if it was also co‐located.

I don't know what AMAC, CEDIA and Integrate are, but SMPTE and ENTECH seemed to work well co‐locating (not in the same hall but side by side).

If the shows were to co‐locate there would be a justification for an annual "mega‐show".

The increased show presence would also encourage more participation from the international brands and would see more "gravitas" to an Aussie show in the region.

ENTECH, Integrate, SMPTE ( and again).

Yes if the world was perfect, they would all co‐locate into one big show every second year. (German Messe as an example <Pro Light and Sound>) The size of our market and the cross‐over of products, distribution and application would support this.

SMPTE/ENTECH/Integrate should all join up to the become the one show.

In these days of the GFC economies of scale make smart sense!

Yes ‐ good idea I also think if there were two basic shows held every two years, offset so there is a show each year would be ideal.

YES ONE BIG SHOW IE FRANKFURT I think CEDIA, ENTECH, SMPTE and Integrate should start playing nicely and all co‐locate for one big AV show at Darling Harbour, put the industry needs ahead of egos and personal agendas and wealth building.

I think the ENTECH / SMPTE exercise worked very well. Both shows complemented each other.

7           

Absolutely agree. Limited budgets means limits exhibiting. Co‐locating is an enticement for an exhibitor.

AMAC, Integrate, SMPTE & ENTECH I would like to see ENTECH, Integrate and SMPTE co‐located.

CEDIA and Integrate should merge, as should ENTECH/SMPTE. 100% agree. Shows to co‐locate are Integrate, CEDIA and SMPTE. I expect it (co‐location) would work very well and be very cost effective.

It would make sense for Integrate and ENTECH to co locate. Integrate for integration and ENTECH becomes a production based show.

SMPTE and ENTECH co‐location worked well from a SMPTE point of view but not necessarily from ENTECH perspective.

ENTECH & Integrate Integrate + CEDIA to form an Integrated Systems show as currently held each year in Amsterdam as ISE. CEDIA‐Integrate

Cast as wide a net as possible…..

The view is that the various industry sectors are becoming less and less discrete and that the industry is being impacted by convergence. At an exhibitor level this is certainly true as the products that they import or manufacture are targeted at several sectors. It is not unusual to find products on an exhibitor’s stand that feature in broadcast, entertainment technologies, staging and AV integration as well as penetrating specialist consumer markets.

As a result an overwhelming number (92%) of exhibitors are seeking a broad‐based event that attracts as wide a range of users as possible. Comments were:  One tradeshow to rule them all (or at least a couple of shows co‐located) is the aim.  It needs to be general and include all of the markets to get the people to attend, as these shows have become more narrow in their profile less and less people have been attending, yet the cost to exhibit has increased.

Interestingly, the delegates too are looking for one show with as many exhibitors as possible at it, regardless of which sector they’re in. And like many of the exhibitors suggest that co‐location is their preferred solution.

Three day events are the optimum…..

The greatest support exists for a three day events (70%). This seems to best balance the investment in time and money while providing a reasonable opportunity for attendees to visit.

Less clear was the idea of extending hours into the evening as 42% of respondents thought it would increase traffic, though this was balanced by the 36% who felt that ‘everyone who is going to come is already coming’. Comments were:  As a previous committee member of the now defunct AES Shows we tried an after 1800 show close that proved not to work at all.  Re the late opening, one night should have a later close but not so late that it would preclude other organised activities.

And in summary…..

Sustainability is clearly the issue. Dissatisfaction with the current event/show calendar is high, even amongst those exhibitors who have had positive recent experiences. That said each of the events has a core of good support as well as their detractors, but no one event is so strong as to dominate the market.

8

The strong themes continue to come through. The exhibitors share may of the same issues as the delegates, and overall are unhappy with:  The number of events.  The cost vs benefit.  The frequency and programming.  The status of the industry is being undermined by the fragmentation caused by the competing shows.  The product being offered by event organisers .  Some exhibitors continue to remind us that the world is changing and that organisers need to consider the impact of the internet and globalisation if we are going to continue to be able to stage quality local events.

And new ones emerge…..  There seems to be a level of support for an industry run show to sit beside SMPTE (another industry run show that encompasses the non‐broadcast sector but staged in a co‐located environment).

Last words….  I think they are all too expensive for the return they give. We are testing doing road shows.  I agree there are far too many in a country with such a small population. Combine and pack a punch every three years.  Too many ‐ Too often  The SMPTE show is run every two years based on exhibitor feedback and need to balance expense against audience reach.  We need one large show, which could be via co‐location, and it probably needs to move around, just like LDI. End users are not likely to trek interstate to a show so the show should move to them, or be so big that it is compelling to attend.  Do it around the warmer months (October/November) when there are less trade shows and most EU and US manufacturers are back from their summer vacations.  Too many shows !  I find SMPTE is too close to Broadcast Asia and think it would better be done in Spring, probably October or early November.  There are too many shows for a small country like Australia.  The availability of information on the web and the low cost of travel to international trade shows managed by manufacturers has made the old trade show model (which we continue to pursue like lemmings here in Oz.) irrelevant. Time for a new approach to customer contact that may see them (trade shows) go the way of many other of the sacred cows.  Two major trade shows within a month of one another is ridiculous, these companies need to work together and put on one decent show which is worth the money that the exhibitors put into it and guarantee a return on the investment.  There are just too many shows.. We need only one show, rather like the Frankfurt Music Messe and Pro Light and Sound model. This show means one cost, high traffic, one lot of time out of the business, a chance to find new markets for products.  Cut them down or join them up, the market is too small for the current options.  The BEST model for owning, running and staging a trade show is SMPTE. ACETA should look hard at this.  There is not room for ENTECH and Integrate, if we have to have two they should alternate.

9    

   

I think we had 4 shows in 5 weeks. This spreads the marketing dollar too far. Even just attending these shows mean we are losing around 10 work days per employee during this period – crazy.

Spacing of the shows should be as great as possible. Integrate and ENTECH this year within 6 weeks of each other in the same city was just dumb.

MERGE THEM ‐ there is no earthly reason for there to be four shows addressing the same tiny market (obviously, I'm not including AMAC here).

Simply: there are too many, and the cost burden is to high for the size of market/opportunity. There is sufficient common ground for Integrate/CEDIA and SMPTE to come together in some way (if the vested interests can agree to co‐operate).

AMAC is probably sufficiently 'different' that it can stand alone, but must do so in a compact/low‐cost format. And ENTECH seems to be irrelevant in context of the above consolidation.

Preference for Industry Group (Aceta) managed show, model on SMPTE approach, broad spectrum for wide appeal.

I feel we have a consensus, too many shows that are too expensive to be done annually.

Shows need to be scheduled not just in the context of other Australian shows, but also regional and other international shows. These, too, affect the allocation of resources as well as quality of attendees.

There is greater competition for marketing funds which offer better return on investment. Trade shows need to acknowledge this and ensure the exhibitors receive value for money