The New LAUNCH LA Trade Show; I Wondered When This Was Going to Happen

/0 Comments/in , /by

Well, what a long strange trip it’s been.

It was just about a year ago that the demise of ASR was officially announced. Since then, as the trade show environment has evolved and people have worked to figure out how to adapt, I’ve written a few times about trade shows. Here, here, here, here, here, here, and here actually, from oldest to most recent.

You would think that would be enough, but yesterday’s announcement of the new LAUNCH  LA trade show has compelled me to take pen to paper (metaphorically speaking) and review the events of the past year. At some level, the launch of LAUNCH (sorry- somebody had to say that) kind of represents the end of this phase of our trade show evolution. Let’s see why this is by reviewing a little trade show history and evaluating the LAUNCH concept.
 
Since ASR Died
 
Remember how the announcement that ASR was folding was kind of a surprise, but not really once you adjusted to the initial shock? Agenda saw (correctly) an opportunity and I’d say they’ve benefitted from ASR closing. I’ll be curious to see how it works out as they move to Long Beach and grow to the next level.    Outdoor Retailer has tried to get some refugees from ASR to exhibit at their show. One thing we all agree on is that the goal of whatever happened next was not to replicate ASR.
 
Our various trade associations all found that funding they had been receiving from ASR went away with that show. Naturally they wanted to replace that, but they were also concerned where their members were going to gather, exhibit, and go to see products and do business.
 
There were I gather a lot of gyrations and conversations among the trade associations and existing trade show organizations, but obviously they weren’t able to reach a cooperative agreement on a new show. As I wrote in one of my earlier articles, the surf and skate disagreements over ASR contributed to the skate hard goods companies pulling out of ASR, and it wasn’t quite clear to me why they were going to get along now in a trade show environment. Skate’s sort of found a home at Agenda for the time being.
 
I also asked in my writings if we needed a replacement for ASR and noted that starting a trade show from scratch required a whole bunch of money, experienced people, and a long lead time. In other words you had to finance and build an organization and not expect it to bear any fruit for maybe a year. 
 
Meanwhile, lurking in the lichens, was Surf Expo whom we haven’t mentioned yet. I guess I’ll start by noting that Surf Expo Show Director Roy Turner is on the non-elected SIMA Advisory Board, as you can see here on SIMA’s web site. I wonder what advice he gave them about trade shows.
 
Surf Expo did a few things right. First, they didn’t try to rush in to fill a perceived void left by ASR. Second, they stayed away from all the gyrations as all the other players tried to negotiate a coalition that would create an ASR replacement.
 
Now, I’m sure there were various calls from various organizations to Surf Expo asking them to be part of that coalition and the third thing Surf Expo did right was to recognize that if they wanted to do some kind of West Coast show, they didn’t need help to do it. They already know how to put on trade shows.
 
Fourth, and most strategically, Surf Expo figured out that the only thing that really mattered was whether they could create a show format that retailers and brands found valuable. If they couldn’t do that, who cared?
 
Finally, they determined that the show needed to be a youth culture rather than action sports show. And that brings us to……….
 
LAUNCH  LA
 
LAUNCH will be held next July 25th and 26th in Santa Monica and given the timing, I imagine most of the product there is going to be seen for the first time. It is not a West Coast Surf Expo. It is not an action sports show. It is not a replacement for ASR. Here’s how they describe it.
 
“LAUNCH LA is a juried event and our panel of experienced and influential experts will screen each company based on quality, design and originality in order to ensure the best product assortment from leading men’s and women’s contemporary fashion labels, footwear and accessories brands, lifestyle and action sports lines, as well as swim, apothecary, and technology collections.”
 
It was probably inevitable I’d like the idea since I more or less suggested it back in July when I wrote: 
 
“If I were going to create a youth culture trade show from scratch, I’d start by developing the list of brand’s I’d want to have exhibiting. Would it include some surf/skate/snow brands? Sure. But I think I might want Apple there (who knows if they’d want to come). And Facebook. And some music companies, and some game companies, and some other brands and activities that I don’t even know about because I’m not quite as cool as I used to be.”
 
“The show I envision wouldn’t be about skate or surf or moto or fashion though I suspect it would include elements of all of those and more. It would be about ‘STUFF THAT’S IMPORTANT TO PEOPLE AGES 14 TO 25.’”
 
If they do this well, it will be a badge of credibility to be allowed to exhibit at LAUNCH. That, of course, implies some limits on growth, but I don’t see that as a bad thing. I also note they’ve chosen to call it “LAUNCH LA,” implying there might be, for example, a “LAUNCH NY.” Maybe they’ll eventually hit some other cities as well. I don’t know this, but it feels like they might be starting down a road towards a group of similar regional shows featuring the most relevant brands and products from those regions.
This will get particularly interesting if (when?) the jurors they have chosen as the arbiters of who gets to exhibit turn down some of the larger, well established brands. If they don’t do that, and we end up with most of the same old brands exhibiting the usual products, it will jeopardize the credibility of the whole concept. From the web site, I get the feeling they are going to require the selected brands to focus on one or a few products that in some way are innovative, technically or otherwise.
 
It also appears to me that there’s no limitation on which companies from which industries might end up exhibiting. I like that. A really cool and well-designed product from an industry we don’t usually associate with our world could show up. I hope there are some surprises. It will help the show’s cachet.
 
And as long as they’re going to have jurors for innovation and design, maybe they should have some to vet the brands for their business practices. Retailers would know that any company exhibiting at Launch could probably be counted on to deliver. Performance is typically a concern of retailers when they choose new brands.
 
For some years now, I’ve been asking what industry we were becoming. I’m still not sure I know the answer, but when a show like LAUNCH LA is started focused on design, fashion, and innovation- coolness if you will- rather than skate, snow surf, or another sport, I know I’m not the only one thinking along those lines.
 
The announcement of LAUNVH LA marks the end of the reverberations caused by ASR going away. I suppose I shouldn’t just assume that this new show will be successful, but there is a hole to fill and I’m pretty sure the people bringing us the show didn’t decide to announce it without researching the concept and how it would be received.
 
I’m looking forward to hearing more about how, exactly, exhibitors will be chosen.

 

 

Lessons From Interbike: Focus In or Focus Out

/14 Comments/in , /by
I had occasion to be in Vegas on business while Interbike was going on. The company I was working with was exhibiting there, so I took the day to wander around the show. I’d never been to Interbike before. There was something different about this trade show from all the others I’d ever been to. It took me a little thinking time with my favorite adult beverage after I got back to begin to figure it out.
 
What I did notice at the show, of course, was that everybody there- exhibitors, buyers, hangers on- were about riding bikes and making riding better. That’s not a completely unique observation. I’ve made a similar comment about SIA’s snow show in Denver where everybody is somehow or other associated with sliding on snow.
 
But I wouldn’t want to push that comparison too hard. Technology, and improving the technology, in the cause of better riding, was king at Interbike. I guess that’s partly because the technology is so visible and touchable and, apparently, constantly changing. I don’t claim there’s no marketing component to this, or that all the “new technologies” really represent significant changes. But it seemed to my bike uneducated eye that product evolution and improvement was very real.
 
And when I looked at the prices of bikes, it appears the consumer agrees and is willing to pay for it. When a friend told me that the price of a top end bike could be $10,000.00 or even more, I almost peed my pants. It’s been a while since I bought a bike and yes, I do know there are also cheap bikes out there.
 
The other thing that my friend told me was that he had bought his bike some years ago, and still had it. But various parts had been replaced as they wore out or he found an upgrade he wanted. It was the same frame, but not necessarily the same bike.
                   
There’s market value in this kind of focus and community of interests. It tells you who your customers are (and who they are not). It invests the customers in their relationship with the retailer and provides reasons to visit that retailer. It gives the consumer an ownership of the product you can only get when the product is upgradeable, not a commodity, and long lived.
 
It’s not that there isn’t a fashion component to all this, but I didn’t seem much “after biking” clothing or “casual” bike shoes. That’s kind of where the comparison to the SIA show falls apart. Obviously, there’s a huge fashion component there.
  
Where else have I seen the kind of commitment to technology and community of interests I saw at Interbike? The only place that comes to mind is in longboarding. Longboarders, like bikers, seem to be an inclusive, group of people who are accepting of anybody who uses any kind of longboard for any purpose. They share an interest in longboard technology and product improvement. That’s probably why they’ve become as big a chunk of the skateboard market as they have.
 
I had a chance to talk to a bike retailer about skateboarding. He didn’t do skate, but was considering picking up longboards. Not short decks- just longboards. He said he wouldn’t know how to sell short decks and they just wouldn’t fit in his shop. He meant “fit,” I think, in a couple of ways. There was no way he could do a wall of short decks, and his customers wouldn’t be interested. But long boards, as a community with improving technology, and as a mode of transportation as well as competition he could relate to.
 
Biking also has the advantage of being something you can do from oh, I don’t know, ages 5 to 75? And, like skate, you can do it anywhere.
 
But where surf, skate, and snow break down, at least compared to biking and, I suppose, longboarding, is that they have diffused their customer focus. Much of the market (most?) is apparel, shoes, and other products, sold to non-participants. Biking has a broad community of common interest defined by participation. Action sports uses participation to attract nonparticipants to its “lifestyle.” Isn’t it interesting that biking, except for BMX, isn’t considered to be part of action sports?
 
Action sports works hard to keep its core distinctive and maybe even exclusive. You, the uncool person, can’t really belong to that core but you can sort of emulate it if you want by buying this shirt. That’s seen as a marketing strength and for some companies it certainly is.  Biking is about hard goods and everybody is invited in as in longboarding. Hmmm. Is longboarding action sports? Maybe how we label it doesn’t matter and I don’t care.
 
Because of its inclusiveness and focus on participation, you compete in the bike market by making a product that helps the rider participate better. When you do that by definition you join and support the community. If you can’t do that, nobody cares. Energy in the industry is concentrated and focused inward.
 
In actions sports, on the contrary, our growth efforts have inevitably become focused outward. Our energy is diffused and bigger, stronger competitors can break in as the distinction between action sports and fashion becomes blurred.
 
I’m not saying that action sports have done it “wrong” and biking and longboarding have done it “right.” At the end of the day, more people are going to bike at some point in their life than are going to surf.  It’s just the way it is. But there’s food for thought here. Is it better to build your market, like bike and longboarding seem to do, by welcoming anybody who wants to participate or can contribute to better participation? Ultimately, you create some limit to your market.
 
Or should you, as action sports has done, go for the much larger market of nonparticipants, recognizing that as you diffuse your energy over this larger market you invite serious competition and make the exclusivity that was initially your greatest competitive advantage less important?
 
I’ll be damned if I know, but the comparison is certainly intriguing.

The Agenda Trade Show, U. S. Open, and Other Trade Show Comments

/0 Comments/in , /by

As I walked around the Agenda Trade Show last week, I saw a lot of people sitting across tables from each other in the booths obviously doing business. That is the definition of a successful trade show. The sample of company executives I talked too seemed to confirm that.  People were surprised by the number of buyers. 

I’m not that worried about the vibe.  How busy or crowded a show is is hard to judge.  It’s impacted by things like the size of the aisles. And I don’t care how much free beer there is.

Okay, wait, I lied. I do care about free beer. But that’s neither here nor there. What’s important is that retailers and brands got together to do business. Whatever other good things happen at trade shows, without that there would be no adequate justification for any show.
 
We also continue to be over, I’m happy to say, the “My booth is bigger than your booth” syndrome that plagued us for so many years. Though there were a few larger spaces at the end of Agenda’s main hall, mostly booths were what I’ll call 10 by 10s that I’m told companies paid $2,500 for. One satisfied executive told me the total cost to attend the show was $5,000 and that they was doing the same amount of business as when they spent $120,000 on a show. He may have been exaggerating, but I’m sure he’s got a point.
 
If I’m Agenda show executives Aaron Levant and Seth Haber, I just perk right up when I hear that, because it implies a show value they aren’t getting compensated for yet. You might want to see another article I wrote on trade shows before ASR died that discusses towards the end the pressures any growing, successful show might be subject to.
 
I think Agenda management will be cautious about how it grows the show and try to have some continuity in who attends and how the show is focused. It’s not that they don’t want to make more money- I don’t actually know anybody who doesn’t- but they watched ASR and I’m guessing learned something from that. Growing too fast, getting too diffuse, charging more than the market can justify; these are all things we learned don’t work.
 
Meanwhile, speaking of how Agenda might evolve, there are the still ongoing conversations among various industry trade groups about putting together an industry week, part of which would be a trade show. I should say I’m not quite clear on what exactly an industry week would encompass besides the trade show which, I trust, wouldn’t last a whole week. But I like the industry week idea if it’s a way to involve consumers, do some educating, and introduce others to our industry.
 
If I were putting together an industry week, I’d be talking with Agenda, and maybe Surf Expo as well, about doing the trade show portion of that week. There’s no need to reinvent the wheel.
 
Surf, of course, needs some replacement for ASR. Skate seems to have found all they need in Agenda as currently configured, or at least that was what some people told me. I hope it isn’t indelicate of me to point out that skate companies left ASR at least partly due to differences with surf. I don’t have an opinion as to who was right or wrong, but I am unclear why skate companies, who seem to have found a good trade show situation at Agenda, would be quite so anxious to do a show with surf again. Reminds me of that old definition of insanity.
 
I’m probably lacking some facts here. Hope somebody calls and gives them to me.
 
And then I walked down the street to the U.S. Open with its air conditioned retail store and Invisalign tent, where you could learn how to get your teeth straightened without unsightly braces showing. I could see the obvious tie-in to surfing because, uh, well,….. Oh- right- the tent was on the beach.
 
Am I the only one who wandered around that place and was worried that all those stores and exhibits would have drawn most of the same people even if there was no surfing contest?
 
But then to approve my attitude I went across the street to Jack’s Surfboards to see a real specialty retailer doing what they do well. Jack’s, in business since 1957, certainly highlights the importance of location, but it was more than that. I felt like I was in a real surf shop. I could feel the echo of the places I frequented as a kid. It was well organized in a comfortable and attractively relaxed way and they had all the inventory they could possibly have without making the place feel confining.
 
So anyway, after a transition period since the closing of ASR, the skate and some youth culture brands have found a home at Agenda and the buyers are showing up. Like I said, that’s the definition of successful show. 

 

 

Trade Shows Re Re Re Re Re Visited; I Got an Idea. A Couple Actually. Hope One is Good.

/13 Comments/in , /by

Since ASR closed, and before that actually, we (well, me at least) have been struggling to figure out the role of trade shows as the economy, technology, and the industry changed. How do you get retailers to attend shows (paying them isn’t a good long term strategy)? Should consumers be involved somehow? What sports and products should be represented? Are shows about buying, or networking, or seeing new product or all of those or none of them? Do people even need to go to shows? How big should shows be and how long should they last? How do you keep the costs down? Do we even need another one?

Various organizations in the industry have been focused (and as far as I know, are still focused) on doing their own show individually or as a group. I’ve had a call from an organization that’s not in our industry but that does trade publications and shows for other smaller industries that wants to publish an action sports business magazine and maybe do a trade show. The existing trade show organizations are thinking about growing, or starting new shows, or just benefiting from the fact that companies that were at ASR need to exhibit somewhere else (I’m not sure that’s true).

I fell into the same thought process everybody else seems to be going through. Then I had a conversation last week with Roy Turner at Surf Expo. I always enjoy talking with Roy. He’ll tell me when he thinks I’m full of shit, though as a Southern gentleman, he’ll do it in such a way that I’ll somehow like being told. I’ve got to learn how to do that.
 
After I talked with Roy, I was thinking about what the action sports business really was (and has always been, actually), the role of fashion, consolidation, the impact of vertical retailing, and SIA and Agenda. I also reread an earlier article I wrote on trade shows right after ASR died.
 
I decided that I, and everybody else I think, have been focusing on the tactics of trade shows. That’s not necessarily a bad thing to do, but it keeps you from answering the fundamental strategic question of why ASR failed and what, if anything, should replace it. It’s kind of like when you buy an old house, you can remodel it. But it often makes more sense (financially as well as stylistically) to tear it down and start from scratch to get just what you want.
 
But we’re a pretty incestuous industry and momentum, resistance to change and cognitive dissonance (god, I love that term), makes it hard to throw out the old model and try something new.
 
What works? SIA seems to be doing really well. Why? First, because they are a one season business and just need one show. I’ve said that before. But what I’ve never realized, or at least what I so took for granted that I never thought about it, is that everybody there is somehow connected to sliding on snow. That’s strategic. It defines their purpose and who should attend.
 
The further ASR got away from that, the more they got in trouble. Like the old saying goes, if you try to be important to everybody, you end up important to nobody. Their attempted fixes were tactical, not strategic. It feels like as an industry some of that same mistake is being made because we want to dance with who we brung.
 
I’m not sure we can because there are a lot of party crashers out there. Maybe there’s a need for an “action sports” trade show but the real action sports industry is composed of those brands and retailers who cater to the participants in the sports and the first level of non-participants that associate themselves with the athletes and lifestyle. It’s pretty small. Most of the customers of most of our brands and retailers don’t fit into the action sports definition I used above.
 
What do they fit into? I’m tending towards youth culture. Hardly a new phrase, but I think very powerful if you think of a trade show in those terms, and begin painting with a blank canvas. Right now, Agenda seems closest to focusing this way and it’s interesting to watch them grow. But I’ve got a little different approach in mind.
 
If I were going to create a youth culture trade show from scratch, I’d start by developing the list of brand’s I’d want to have exhibiting. Would it include some surf/skate/snow brands? Sure. But I think I might want Apple there (who knows if they’d want to come). And Facebook. And some music companies, and some game companies, and some other brands and activities that I don’t even know about because I’m not quite as cool as I used to be. Okay, maybe I never was cool. Different issue.
 
Now if you ask me why Apple would want to attend, well, I’m not quite sure they would. This concept is not completely formed in my head. Maybe what I’d do is visit all the coolest retailers in the country, or otherwise compose a list of them (online included) and create a list of the brands they carried. The show I envision wouldn’t be about skate or surf or moto or fashion though I suspect it would include elements of all of those and more. It would be about “STUFF THAT’S IMPORTANT TO PEOPLE AGES 14 TO 25.”
 
Is it possible to do a show that would kind of cross over industries like this one would? I’m not sure. Figuring out what brands to invite and explaining how they all tied together and could benefit wouldn’t be easy. Getting retailers to decide to attend a show that wasn’t completely relevant to what they sold might be a challenge although, as I think about it, maybe retailers who see themselves focused on youth culture would come precisely because this would be the best place to find new products and brands.
`
I’d also invite to attend (not to exhibit and maybe only for one specified day?) large companies who want to reach this demographic. And I’d charge them a lot of money to come. Maybe retailers wouldn’t be there that day and it would be a chance for brands to look for tie ins with large corporate players desperate to be cool.
 
A specifically action sports show made sense when we were all about action sports. Now, most of our business seems to be about youth culture (I’m open to a better term) so why aren’t we creating a youth culture trade show?
 
Partly, of course, because we can’t expect a trade organization to create a show that doesn’t cater directly to its members. But if trade shows are a waste of time unless retailers attend, then we damned well better create one that focuses on those retailers’ customer. Are they mostly action sports customers as I’ve defined them? Nope, they are youth culture customers.
 
It seems kind of obvious now and I have no idea why it took me so long to figure it out.  Please speak up if you think I’m crazy.

 

 

Thoughts on a Longboard Trade Show

/10 Comments/in , , /by

Concrete Wave sent out a press release February 21 announcing the first longboard tradeshow in New York City on March 11. I didn’t think about it much at first, but as some time passed, a few questions occurred to me.

The first was, “Why does longboarding need its own trade show?” Maybe it doesn’t need it, but apparently the longboarding part of the skateboard industry wants it. Given the growth of longboarding, I can’t see any reason why they shouldn’t have it. I’ve heard estimates that longboarding represents up to 50% of the skateboard hard goods market (personally, I think that’s a little high).   It also seems logical to me that these longboarding companies, many of which are pretty small, can’t really afford, and maybe don’t need (yet?) a big, longer show like Surf Expo.

The second question was, “What, exactly, is a trade show?” This one will last only from noon to 8PM on March 11, will be streamed live over the internet (at www.pushculture.com), and is being held at the new and second location of The Longboard Loft, a retailer in New York City. The reason they are doing it there, I gather, is because the place isn’t quite completely open yet and there’s room. The show will be followed by the presentation of the Second Annual Concrete Wave/AXS Gear Reader’s Choice Awards.
 
Following the demise of ASR, there was a lot of ringing of hands, meetings and phone calls as organizations dependent on ASR scurried around to figure out how to replace their lost revenue. There was talk that those organizations might decide to combine forces and put on their own trade show. Honestly, I don’t expect it to happen if only because of the significant cash that would have to be committed and the fact that putting on an ASR type trade show is a complicated management undertaking- a fact that may not be appreciated until you start to think about doing it yourself. Done on a large scale it requires a long lead time and experienced trade show management.
 
This longboard show is called a trade show, but I think another term might be appropriate. How about “organic industry gathering?” All I know is that about 32 longboard brands decided to get together for day, show product, talk to their customers (consumers as well as retailers), exchange information, and probably have a good time.
 
Actually, there’s a waiting list of another 13 brands. They’ve been invited to come anyway, hang out with their product and, if necessary, display it at the bar next door. Brands that are attending include Sector 9, Globe, Earthwing, Triple 8, and Bustin.0   I’m guessing the people putting this on aren’t even certain how it will all work out.
 
If there was still an ASR, would this show even be happening? Yes. Longboard brands aren’t participating in this show instead of going to ASR. They needed something that met their needs, and they needed it on the East coast. Longboard is a distinct and growing industry segment. That’s not my opinion- it’s what the consumer has decided.   Action sports is no longer quite so distinctive and is not growing very quickly unless you include new sports in it, and then one wonders if it’s still action sports.
 
Organic industry gatherings work when there are common interests and rationales for participating. Part of ASR’s problem was that it lost that as the definition of action sports changed.
 
My third and last question was, “How come long and short skateboard companies aren’t in this together putting on a single skate industry show?” Different cultures and customers? Partly. Because they are competitors? That’s an interesting question I don’t know
the answer to. 

I expect to watch this show on the internet for at least a little while. Maybe what makes an organic industry gathering successful isn’t the location, the size, how long it lasts, how many people come or how much business is done there, but the common interests of the participants. Just a thought.        

 

Requiem for the ASR Show. Now What?

/15 Comments/in , /by

At the moment you hear about it, it’s kind of a surprise. But when the initial shock passes, it’s not. I thought The Editors over at Boardistan put it best. Back in 2009, referring to ASR, they said;

“We have to wonder what happens to the entire trade show business model when they have to pay retailers to attend. Lord knows retailers need to be treated well these days, but it still seems to bring us back to the question that’s been plaguing the boardsports business for several years: are trade shows even relevant anymore?”

I couldn’t have put it any better. Or at least not so succinctly. In fact, I didn’t put it succinctly. In the summer of 2009, I wrote a long article about trade shows in general for Transworld Business. Much of what I said then is still relevant. On the assumption that you don’t want to hear me re-pontificate it all, I’ll just include the link here. If you don’t read the serious part of the article and haven’t seen it, you might just to go to the section “In the Beginning,” where I wax biblical. There’s always room for a little humor. It’s one of my favorite things I’ve ever written.
 
What Went Wrong for ASR?
 
As I’ve heard it, the straw that broke the camel’s back was the decision of a number of large brands not to participate in the show. But the poor camel had been under stress for quite a while and the recession, exacerbating a number of existing trends, accelerated the process.  What are these trends?
 
  • Fewer retailers. And the ones that were showing up brought fewer people.
  • Brands showing product and getting orders outside of the trade show environment.
  • The internet and everything you can do on it
  • The union/convention center cost structure.
  • Industry consolidation. Big companies don’t have as much need of trade shows. See the second point above.
  • Recognition that competing against your competitors at trade shows with your show presentation is silly.
  • Slower industry growth.
  • More trade shows while demand was falling. Crossroads. Agenda.
  • Declining clarity as to just what the action sports market is. Did starting Class help ASR, or did it cause confusion as to just what the show was about and who should attend?
 
And then there’s that old bugaboo called momentum. As I’ve said, companies, trade show or otherwise, get in trouble due to denial and perseverance in a period of change.
 
In hindsight it’s easy to see what ASR should have done; Blown up the existing format and started over with another ASR show that recognized changing conditions. Specifically, that the show was essentially a regional show for smaller and new brands. And if that sounds a bit like Agenda well, okay. Maybe they should have just bought Agenda.
 
I hasten to admit that’s all easier to say than to do. It’s that momentum thing. I’m pretty certain ASR boss Andy Tompkins was quite aware of all the factors I listed above. I know he was. He lived with them every day. Yet it’s hard to imagine him (or anybody in his position) going to his boss, and his boss’s boss a couple of years ago and saying, “This isn’t working. We need to blow it up and start with a new focus and a smaller show.” Or maybe he did and got overruled by some people further up in the organization who aren’t quite in touch with our market. Big organizations often don’t make difficult, unpleasant changes until forced to.
 
With that short forensic analysis of what happened behind us what happens now?
 
Everybody’s talking
 
Just from the flurry of public discussion after the announcement, we can assume that IASC is talking to Agenda is talking to SIMA is talking to BRA is talking to Crossroads is talking to Surf Expo is talking to IASC. And if there was some talking going on at Outdoor Retailer and SIA I wouldn’t be surprised.
 
It’s public knowledge that certain of these organizations have (had?) deals with ASR that provided them with a certain amount of funding. Nobody much likes it when revenue goes away. I know I don’t. Those who lost income will want to replace it. Where? How? From whom? That will be a lot of the focus right now.
 
Concrete Wave is sponsoring a show by an organization called  Homegrown called the Midwest Skateboard Industry Summit next May.  As they are selling booth space for $200, I guess it also has elements of a trade show.  I suspect there will be more announcements from various players. 
 
There was an immediate reaction from various sources that Agenda had “won” and ASR “lost.” I didn’t see it that way. I don’t expect Agenda to take over the ASR space. I just don’t think the ASR format and structure for a trade show is valid any longer for the reasons I list above. I’ve also written (see the above link to my earlier trade show article) that anybody who tried might find themselves with the same issues that lead ASR to close.
 
Aaron and Seth at Agenda have themselves a small, solid, regional show. Can they grow it? I expect them can. They have. How much? And in which market? Is Agenda fashion or action sports? I’d be really careful saying “both.” ASR, with Class, tried to be both. When they opened Class, it was a symptom of the problems- not part of a solution.
 
The action sports industry is going back to what it used to be; a fairly small industry and its customers consisting of participants in the sports and the immediate circle of people who may not be participants but are committed to the lifestyle and truly interested in the sports. The rest is fashion; a style sold to customers who’ve seen surfing only on TV and have never been near a skate park. Bigger public companies looking to grow are after that market. They have to be to find growth. They may have their roots in action sports, but it’s getting harder, if you just look at their customer base, to call them action sports companies.
 
That has a huge impact on what our trade shows should or shouldn’t be. It’s incumbent on anybody running a trade show to figure out who their market is. Trouble is, I’m not sure either “fashion” or “action sports” really describes it. Youth culture might be closer.
As all this talking among the various industry organizations goes on, I hope it’s not just about replacing ASR. Let’s assume there were no trade shows. What would we want ours to look like?
 
First, it should look however the retailers want it to look. And as I indicated above, it would initially be regional and would be for new and small brands. Maybe it gets combined with the industry boot camp or other conferences. Perhaps it’s not only brands with booths, but venture capitalists, attorneys, bankers, accountants and other organizations that can help new brands and are interested in them as customers.
 
There should be a web site associated with the show that doesn’t just promote the show, but encourages interactions among the participants. Would it be closed to retailers for a day just so the focus could be on how these companies could run their businesses better? I’d like to see us try and charge non-endemic companies a big price to show up and be educated about the industry. I hope whoever runs this new show has authority to decide which companies can exhibit regardless of who belongs to what group.
 
If we’re going to break some new ground, let’s do it quickly. I find myself sitting here wondering if I should go to Agenda, Surf Expo, or Outdoor Retailer instead. Obviously, some companies are going to be looking for a replacement venue.
 
Fundamentally, however, we have to start by asking if we need another trade show. Maybe there will be surfboards at Outdoor Retailer, skateboards at Agenda and brands that tend towards fashion at Magic and some fashion shows I don’t even know about. Remember that skate had more or less pulled out of ASR, so it’s hard to argue that skate and surf have to be together, though one trade show makes it a whole lot easier for retailers.
 
Whatever happens, I hope the discussion among all the people who are talking is more around what the industry needs or doesn’t need rather than the requirements of the organizations they represent.
 
This is great opportunity to do the trade show we want if we’re really sure we want it.

Notes From the SIA Show in Vegas, Uh, I Mean Denver

/0 Comments/in , , /by

The beer is a lot cheaper in Denver, assuming you don’t actually consider the beers they handed you at the gambling tables in Vegas to be free. The hotels are more expensive and getting to said hotels from the airport takes longer.   Most of the people I talked with (by no means a scientific sample) would have preferred the show was still in Vegas but I’m sure we’ll all adjust. I have never had so many friendly people ask me if I needed help finding anything and tell me they hoped I had a nice day. If that happened in Vegas I’d probably think I’d done something wrong. They were certainly glad to see us in Denver.

But was it a “good” show? You know, I have certainly gotten old enough, and maybe wise enough to know that you can’t judge a show just by walking around it, though we are all guilty of that to some extent. It was a good show for me, and snowboard industry booths seemed busy enough. I have to confess I didn’t spend much time in the ski part.
So I’ll leave the show analysis to others who have more and better data than I have. At the end of the day, the question is was it a good show for your company? But I do have a few observations we might have some fun with.
Happiest Company
Had to be Never Summer. Not only is their factory in Denver (they were offering tours) but economic conditions have suddenly made their long term business model of high quality, good margins, and limited distribution that leads to strong sell through something that absolutely everybody understands. They swear they won’t screw it up and I believe them.
Best Show Favor
Betty Rides party panties. Owner Janet Freeman gave me a couple of pair, but they were a little snug so I had to give them away.
Interesting Business Model
I ran into Cec Annett, formerly with Adidas, who’s now the CEO of The Clymb (www.theclymb.com).   It’s a membership site where they sell, for only a couple of days for each item, quality overstocks of product at big discounts from industry brands. There’s no charge to be a member, but an existing member has to recommend you. The brand doesn’t have to worry about the product showing up on Ebay, and the presentation is very professional- the brand image is supported. The financial model is also intriguing. Cec, please remember this nice plug when you’re rich and famous and, in the meantime, can you get me signed up as a member?
Small Booths
A number of major brands had much smaller booths than last year and I say good for them. A trade show booth should be exactly the size you need to do whatever business you do and not influenced by the size of your competitor’s booth. I guarantee that if you have a product that sells well at retail with good margins your customer will buy it even if you don’t have a two story booth the size of a house with a helicopter on top (who besides me remembers that?)
Large Booth
Burton and its associated brands took up around 10% of the total floor space in the snowboard area. The Burton brand by itself had the largest footprint of any company there. Things must be going really well at Burton for them to have paid SIA’s standard rate of $11 per square foot for premium members for all that space.
Guy with the Best New Job
It has to be Ryan Hollis who, after 12 years with Quiksilver, is now the General Manager of Mervin Manufacturing. Guess this means Mike Olson can give up doing the accounting.

ASR and Crossroads Make a Deal; What a Surprise!

/0 Comments/in , /by

This is good news because it makes things easier for the retailers, which I may have said a time or two is what trade shows need to be about. Crossroads needed retailers, which ASR can help supply, and Jamie Thomas doesn’t want to have to manage the logistics that will be required if Crossroads grows. ASR needs the skateboard industry. I don’t think Andy Tompkins wants ASR to be thought of as “a surf show” when apparel, style, and fashion are so much a part of where the whole action sports industry is going (has gone?). Hmmm. By that logic, Surf Expo should consider changing its name. And ASR would like to bring back the additional exhibitors and revenue that the skate industry represents.

This is being billed as an experiment over the next two ASRs. I’m guessing, especially when the economy improves, that it will be extended and the relationship will become closer. At some point, I expect to see the skate companies back in the convention center if the economics can be made to work.
It’s kind of an open secret that there have been some disagreements between the skate industry and ASR about how the show could best serve the skate industry. When times were good, those disagreements were easy to paper over. But then things got tough and, to some extent, the Crossroads show was the response. I’m glad to see them working out their differences in the interest of the industry and the retailers.

What Does the Skate Industry Want From Trade Shows? I Think I Know.

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Transworld is trying to get an on line discussion of this topic going, and that’s a good idea. So far, it hasn’t generated much discussion and that’s too bad. Maybe the problem is that they’ve asked the wrong question by focusing on the skate industry. If they’d just asked, “What does a company- any company in any industry- want from trade shows?” they might have gotten some better answers.

 At the risk of oversimplifying, what any company wants from a trade show is to know that the benefit to their business, in terms of sales generated, or market positioning, or whatever, justifies the cost. If you ask any executive of any brand, you’ll find it really is conceptually that simple, though measuring the benefits can be hard.
Obviously, right now a lot of skate brands, and other action sports industry brands as well, feel the cost exceeds the benefits. Between tough economic decisions and changes in how we do business that isn’t surprising. 
I wrote in my recent article on trade shows that the role of trade shows was to make things easy for retailers, and that we weren’t doing that by creating more shows. I said that the internet, free communications, changes in order cycles, selling to non participants through expanded distribution channels and other things were changing the role of the trade show. And not just for skate.
How do we make trade shows most effective? Well, aside from having fewer of them, I’m not sure. To find out, I’d want very specific answers to the following questions:
·         What role do shows play in generating orders compared to ten years ago?
·         How has the cost of attending or exhibiting at a trade show changed?
·         Is there any relationship between size of booth and measureable success at a trade show?
·         To what extent is brand attendance and presentation driven by competitor behavior?
·         What are the measures of a successful trade show for a brand and for a retailer?
·         How long does a retailer need to be at a show?
I’m sure this list should be longer.   I assume that ASR, SIA and Surf Expo have asked these questions and others.  Trouble is, in this environment it’s no longer possible (or at least it’s a lot harder) to reconcile the needs of brands and retailers to the show formats the trade show companies need to make a buck and I imagine the answers to some of the questions above might demonstrate that.
Vested interests will, understandably and inevitably, make it tough to reach a consensus on what an appropriate trade show format is in the current environment where there’s no longer the cash flow to permit an easy compromise.
What industry companies want from trade shows is something that the trade show providers are having a harder time providing at a cost that makes sense to the companies. This cognitive dissonance is likely to continue to exist and leave us with our current, somewhat dysfunctional, trade show situation.            

Trade Shows. There Can Be Only One?

/1 Comment/in , /by

 So let me see if I understand this. At a time when economic conditions are leading us to fewer brands and fewer shops and consumers spending fewer bucks, and those brands and retailers that are left want to spend less money and send fewer people to trade shows, we have more trade shows.   Will somebody please explain to me the economic model that says you increase supply when demand is falling?

I’m sure the people who bring us all Agenda/ASR/Crossroads/Surf Expo would all agree that one show is a great idea- as long as it’s theirs. The snowboard/ski industry can be more efficient in their approach. They have one national (and they might argue international) show followed by smaller regional shows. They can do that because a) SIA owns the show and b) they are a one season business. Never thought I’d hear myself giving a reason why the snowboard industry’s seasonality was a good thing.
 
Over on the skate/surf side of things we’ve got two sports, shoes, and a lot of apparel sold to non participants, and shorter product cycles, so if somebody wants to suggest that those differences might justify other shows, I can imagine they can make a reasonable argument.   Still, it seems like a good time to talk about the role of trade shows and how it has changed. And how it hasn’t changed.
 
It’s Still About the Retailer- Isn’t it?
There wouldn’t be any trade shows if retailers didn’t show up. I know there are other reasons to go to trade shows, but without the chance to see and sell to customers, brands aren’t going to want to shoulder the cost and effort of a show. That, at least, should be pretty non controversial. Let’s talk, then, about how retailers are best served.
 
At the risk of oversimplifying, they are best served by having to go to the fewest possible shows for the fewest days it takes to get their work done and seeing the most brands in the industries they are in. As I said, that doesn’t necessarily mean one show- issues of seasonality and geography may make it logical to have others, but having shows in related industries that run essentially at the same time and in the same place seems counterproductive. If you’re a local retailer, maybe this isn’t too much of a hassle. I once heard a retailer tell an industry person, “Hey, if you put on that show, we’ll come.” He wasn’t saying, “That’s a great idea! We need another show.” He was saying, “Oh what the hell, we’re located here anyway, it’s not much of an inconvenience, it won’t cost much, and I need to see those brands, and these guys seem determined to do it whether I want them to or not.”
 
Retailers also want to see new brands and get the “vibe.” I wouldn’t want to have to define that, but we all know what I mean. I think they can do that better in larger shows with more brands and retailers. And while I acknowledge that the vibe is different in skate than in surf, I’d remind everybody that the skate shoe business has become the casual shoe business, we’re increasingly in the fashion/apparel business, and most of our sales as an industry are to people who are not participants in the sports- especially in surf. That’s the reality of the selling environment most of our retailers deal with. If shows are going to help retailers make good buying decisions, and thereby stay relevant, doesn’t it seem logical that they should reflect the selling environment the retailer has to operate in? All trade shows might start from that perspective as they consider changes/improvements in their shows.
 
Trade shows have also become less important to big brands and retailers, and more important to small ones. I guess I should say that’s my perception and not state it as a fact. Less buying for large brands and retailers happens at shows because large brands are servicing large retailers much better outside of trade shows than they use to. The internet and cheap to free communications has played a role in this. It’s also true that the percentage of sales to small retailers has declined for big brands.
 
The trouble is that the big brands, with their huge footprint and big trade show budgets allowed the trade show producers to spread their overhead and effectively subsidize the smaller brands. But the recession, and the evolution I describe in the paragraph above, changed that.
 
How Did We Get Here?
IN THE BEGINNING there was ASR (I don’t know what the first show was- just go with me here). And the snowboarders, skateboarders, and surfers looked and saw that it was good. Also, it was their only choice. And they said, “Let us go forth to the temple [convention center] and use our many shekels to build altars up to the sky [trade show booths] that we may convert the consumer, gain market share, impress our competitors, and act 10 times bigger than we really are. And they smoked burnt offerings and saw that it was fun.
 
Then the prophet Ingemie came down from the snowy mountains and spake to the snowboarders saying, “Nothing shall ye sell in September, and only one show can you afford anyway.” And they saw that he was righteous, and made a great pilgrimage unto the desert, and lay down with the ski companies and made offerings to the gods at the many altars there, for the acolytes gave them free sacramental wine.
 
Then the God of Commerce sent the twin plagues of oversupply and lack of product differentiation, and they were laid low. Most of them had just been hoping to get laid.
 
But the skaters were unafraid. “For the third time, we have risen from the dead, but we have been perfumed and no longer stinketh, and are beloved of parents and park and recreation departments everywhere.” They chose as their symbol The Hawk, and it was much worshipped in the land. Their followers multiplied beyond reason, for the skaters were cool.
 
In their sanctuary in the land of Cabo, the surfers gathered and were troubled. “Who are these skaters who are said to be cooler than we and who try to take from the people the offerings that were surely meant for us?”
 
They didn’t have to be troubled for long.
 
For the high priests of the skaters had sent forth a decree so that all would know and love the skateboard. “Of Canadian maple shall thy deck be made with from 7 to 9 plies. Neither six plies nor ten plies shall it have.   Of no other wood shall it be constructed and whoa be to he who uses other materials or technologies.” And the high priests sent out unto the land the lesser priests (team riders) to carry the message to the faithful. There was a plague of advertising and promotion and the high priests grew content.
But the God of Commerce saw their hubris and said, “The high priests of skate have turned their faces from me. For I have sent unto them a great market, and they have prospered, but have forgotten the humble consumers, who are the true gods of commerce and always get what they want.”
 
Then the God of Commerce did send forth a disciple to the Land of Buddha. And he gathered followers and lifted up their faces saying to them, “Behold! I bring you great tidings of a new market. Surely you whose labor costs are lower than the belly of the serpent crawling upon the firmament can help the humble consumer?”
 
Then the people of the Land of Buddha saw clearly. And so they spake: “If we can manufacture integrated circuits, we sure as hell can make a skateboard.”
 
And they made many. And the prices were low. The high priests of skate were visited by a plague of blanks and shop decks. And they saw that they were fucked. There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth. But many consumers rejoiced. For they could spend fewer shekels to do what they loved.
 
Then the surfers rejoiced. “See!” they said. “The skaters are struck down but we are still mighty and definitely cooler than they are for people still flock to join our church though they live in Oklahoma.”
 
The God of Commerce heard this and sent surf boards from the Land of Buddha as a warning, but it was not heeded. And when skate, surf, and snowboard product had covered the world, even unto the land of Costco, the God of Commerce said, “Oh the hell with it,” and he sent The Great Recession.
 
Reboot
I’m sorry about that. I wrote “in the beginning” actually meaning to talk about trade shows but it just got out of control. Can’t wait to see what the editors do about this. How can I recover?
 
Trade show companies want to make money.   So do brands and retailers. So do I. Nothing wrong with that. How do you make money as a trade show? One way to do it is to charge more (and provide more services) when times are good and everybody is focused on revenue growth and market share and not quite so focused on expense management. You can be more efficient because you’ve got more exhibitors taking more space and you’re spreading your overhead. We all spend a lot of time figuring out pricing and try to charge a little more from time to time if we think conditions permit it. Why wouldn’t a company putting on a trade show do the same thing?
 
Suddenly times get a little tougher. Either for skate, or for surf, or for snow, or for everybody. Some brands decide to reduce their booth space. Retailers don’t bring as many people. Maybe one segment of exhibitors feels that the show isn’t quite supporting their needs or is favoring the other segment. Not that that would ever happen in our industry.
 
The trade show, with its revenues squeezed, may initially raise its prices. This, of course, just makes the problem worse. This is an especially big problem for small and new brands that had previously, to some extent, been subsidized by the larger brands. Ultimately, the show has to cut services. Brands who already thought the show was too expensive or that it wasn’t meeting their needs see this as proof that they are right. They may pull out or reduce their presence further.
 
You can see we’ve got a huge negative feedback loop going here.
 
Meanwhile, to meet what they see as a demand, somebody rents a hotel or puts up some tents and has a trade show. The brands say, “Hey, we can afford this!” and some of them who are unhappy with the big show or don’t think they can afford it, flock to these shows. This, of course, makes it even tougher for the big show, reinforcing the negative feedback loop and, by the way, making it tougher on the retailer.
 
Maybe at some point the big show starts to lose money. They don’t like that. They cut everything they can, invest as much as they can afford, but the negative feedback loops keeps working. Finally they say, “That’s it, we’re done.”
 
When that show goes away, you have probably lost most of your retailers who came from out of the country or even from out of the local area. And I am certain there would immediately be pressure on some small show to expand to meet demand. Guess what will happen?
 
The growth process will be painful, and when it’s done the little show will have to be in a convention center somewhere and guess what their cost structure will look like? It will be just the same as the old big show and the whole thing can start over again.
 
And the retailer, who’s suppose to be the most important reason for having these shows, will have been jerked around and inconvenienced. Don’t we want to make it easier for them to see and buy product- not harder?
 
I don’t care how it happens or who does it, but there needs to be one main trade show. If you believe that shows are for the benefit of retailers, I don’t see how you can disagree with that.