Research on event accountability

BPA Worldwide, the global media auditors,  just released the results of their October 2008 research to measure the perceived value of independent event audits and how they are utilized when marketers are making exhibiting decisions.

Respondents indicated a strong belief that event organizers should be held at least somewhat accountable for delivery of audience in terms of quality promised (90%), title quality (84%), and buying power (82%). [Oddly, quantity isn't mentioned in the results.]

In related news, 47% of respondents said that an independent trade show audit is either extremely important or somewhat important (62% of exhibit/event managers).

This is my favorite part about research: the delta between what people say and what they do.

Presumably the difference between those who use audits and those who believe in quality accountability (40%ish) rely on their own personal observation of quality. Apparently based on the attendees who come to their booth? Which continues the long-standing debate about who was in the building versus who the exhibitor attracted to their booth.

It is encouraging to know that such a high number of event managers rely on audits when they get them.  If they will go the next step and start asking for them, more event producers will provide them.

 

What next, Macworld?

Interesting take on the Apple kerfluffle at Macworld in Expo this week. 

Its a real shame how the broader media, who have happily enjoyed VIP status at Macworld for all these years, so quickly turned on the event when Apple chose to turn on their ecosystem and announce their exit.  Not only that Macworld is dead, but suddenly claiming its been declining for years.  Hm, not according to their audited attendance numbers, not to mention the number of exhibitors or square footage.  I particularly enjoy the pervasive comments that who would attend without the Jobs keynote, since that is what everyone comes to see.  Really?!  How many fit into the keynote room?  2,000?  Out of the 45,000 who came last year?  So what about the other 43,000?  Maybe they came to see the exhibitors.  And not just Apple, but the other 499?

The press aren’t the only ones assuming the worst. And the reality of weird perceptions and herd mentality makes the worst come true.  If the other 499 exhibitors stayed in the event, the attendees would still come.  But if they all think the others won’t because Apple is gone, then they won’t.

So Paul Kent is forced to accept the otherwise amazing gift to be in a position to re-imagine the ideal event to serve the Apple community, without the onerous demands and limitations from Apple, under an existing, vibrant, brand. 

The town hall meeting held at the event was a great way to solicit ideas…but the general public is unlikely to suggest the magic bullet.  I hope Paul finds it.  A much smaller Macworld could still be a fantastic event.