Leadking
Contributor
From a letter I to wrote DEMA in 2004;
Houston – We have a problem!
The issues surrounding the upcoming 2004 DEMA tradeshow in Houston have been years in the making. It is important to note that the blame is focused on the City of Houston, when in fact, the blame belongs to DEMA. Houston is the whipping boy for a whole series of miscalculations in regards to the DEMA tradeshow. The major reason that exhibitors and attendees are not coming is the tradeshow is not fulfilling its purpose. The DEMA tradeshow has been in trouble for a long time. Interviews with exhibitors over the years has made it clear that most were unhappy with the performance of the show, but continued to exhibit as it was the best of poor choices.
How we got here
1 Moving the tradeshow to the fall without considering the issues in depth.
Announcing a move in 3-5 years would have allowed DEMA to improve its financial position and allow time to negotiate good venues while appeasing those whom felt a fall show was needed.
The decision by DEMA to move the timing of the show without demonstrating to both exhibitors and attendees an overwhelming benefit caused unneeded friction and discontent. The Tradeshow is DEMA’s only major asset. Its value in the marketplace to the dive industry is uncalcuable, but its value to tradeshow companies as an ongoing business is likely to be more than $10 million. Decisions regarding a business enterprise of this size require much study and consultations with its vendors and customers before major changes be made.
2 Skipping a year allowed the dive industry to see how their business’s performed without a tradeshow. Never let the customer learn he can live without the product!
3 Choosing two weak venues back to back. This allowed exhibitors to skip exhibiting at a weak venue and to spend the tradeshow dollars in exploring other avenues of promotion.
4 Dismissing concerns expressed by exhibitors and attendees as statements made by “DEMA haters”. Those who have expressed concerns have done so in an effort to bring to Board of Directors legitimate concerns involving the performance of the tradeshow.
The bigger problem
DEMA’s belief that the situation is temporary. The industry is looking to spend its promotional dollars in a more productive manner. If this experiment by some exhibitors (not attending the tradeshow) works, DEMA will see a further decline in its tradeshow.
Recommendations
DEMA should launch a “blue ribbon panel” to address the tradeshow issues.
DEMA needs to implement a study, such as one that was conducted by Diagnostic Research (DR), on behalf of DEMA’s tradeshow committee when I was its chair. This study became my “bible” as I guided the committee. It interviewed both exhibitors and attendees in depth, and weighted the results based upon dollar volume of the responding companies. This study has been lost by DEMA and purged from DR’s files. A new study is desperately needed.
DEMA also needs to understand that it is selling a product to its membership. Most are feeling that the product quality is going down. While DEMA may not be raising its prices for booth space, the ancillary costs of attending are exploding. It is these total costs borne by both exhibitors and attendees that DEMA must address. I feel that the organization has lost its way. DEMA needs to understand that its sole purpose of existence is to serve its members.
This is a “Cliff Notes” version of my opinions and observation.
I sincerely hope that by working together, we can find long term solution that works for our association.
Regards
Lee Selisky
Houston – We have a problem!
The issues surrounding the upcoming 2004 DEMA tradeshow in Houston have been years in the making. It is important to note that the blame is focused on the City of Houston, when in fact, the blame belongs to DEMA. Houston is the whipping boy for a whole series of miscalculations in regards to the DEMA tradeshow. The major reason that exhibitors and attendees are not coming is the tradeshow is not fulfilling its purpose. The DEMA tradeshow has been in trouble for a long time. Interviews with exhibitors over the years has made it clear that most were unhappy with the performance of the show, but continued to exhibit as it was the best of poor choices.
How we got here
1 Moving the tradeshow to the fall without considering the issues in depth.
Announcing a move in 3-5 years would have allowed DEMA to improve its financial position and allow time to negotiate good venues while appeasing those whom felt a fall show was needed.
The decision by DEMA to move the timing of the show without demonstrating to both exhibitors and attendees an overwhelming benefit caused unneeded friction and discontent. The Tradeshow is DEMA’s only major asset. Its value in the marketplace to the dive industry is uncalcuable, but its value to tradeshow companies as an ongoing business is likely to be more than $10 million. Decisions regarding a business enterprise of this size require much study and consultations with its vendors and customers before major changes be made.
2 Skipping a year allowed the dive industry to see how their business’s performed without a tradeshow. Never let the customer learn he can live without the product!
3 Choosing two weak venues back to back. This allowed exhibitors to skip exhibiting at a weak venue and to spend the tradeshow dollars in exploring other avenues of promotion.
4 Dismissing concerns expressed by exhibitors and attendees as statements made by “DEMA haters”. Those who have expressed concerns have done so in an effort to bring to Board of Directors legitimate concerns involving the performance of the tradeshow.
The bigger problem
DEMA’s belief that the situation is temporary. The industry is looking to spend its promotional dollars in a more productive manner. If this experiment by some exhibitors (not attending the tradeshow) works, DEMA will see a further decline in its tradeshow.
Recommendations
DEMA should launch a “blue ribbon panel” to address the tradeshow issues.
DEMA needs to implement a study, such as one that was conducted by Diagnostic Research (DR), on behalf of DEMA’s tradeshow committee when I was its chair. This study became my “bible” as I guided the committee. It interviewed both exhibitors and attendees in depth, and weighted the results based upon dollar volume of the responding companies. This study has been lost by DEMA and purged from DR’s files. A new study is desperately needed.
DEMA also needs to understand that it is selling a product to its membership. Most are feeling that the product quality is going down. While DEMA may not be raising its prices for booth space, the ancillary costs of attending are exploding. It is these total costs borne by both exhibitors and attendees that DEMA must address. I feel that the organization has lost its way. DEMA needs to understand that its sole purpose of existence is to serve its members.
This is a “Cliff Notes” version of my opinions and observation.
I sincerely hope that by working together, we can find long term solution that works for our association.
Regards
Lee Selisky
Last edited:
