The Exhibit Industry Council (EIC) recently released its first  Best Practice:  Full Disclosure and Control of Exhibitor Costs.

From the EIC press release:

The purpose of this Best Practice, as stated in the recommendation, is to increase exhibitor value and improve the effectiveness of event marketing, to advocate for the full disclosure over trade show and event marketing costs, and to guide the industry in making adjustments that will support its financial future and continued presence in the corporate marketing mix.

At TSF, we believe that exhibitors should know more about what they are paying for.  This helps exhibitors determine ROI and the most efficient way to make their trade show experience successful.  In that spirit, we’re hosting a petition supporting the main principals of the EIC Full Disclosure and Control of Exhibitor Costs.

This is an important movement for the entire trade show industry and those that use trade shows to market products and do business.  We won’t publish or sell your name — the purpose of this document is solely to make important changes in the industry

The Petition

The Exhibit Industry Council (EIC), comprised of five major trade show industry associations, was formed to define and advocate for exhibitor-focused Best Practices for trade shows, conventions, congresses, and private events. The goal is to unite all industry stakeholders to support reputable, consistent standards.

Currently, there are conditions in the industry that impede the value exhibitors gain from face-to-face marketing events specifically conventions and trade shows. This Best Practice Guide outlines these conditions and suggests “best practices” to overcome the challenges created in this otherwise productive and effective sales and marketing environment.

Exhibiting companies need to understand the total cost of event participation to make decisions about which events will provide a sufficient ROI to their marketing plan. In order to understand and control costs, exhibitors need full disclosure of pricing by the organizers as well as general service contractors (GSCs) before exhibit space contracts are signed. This helps exhibitors make informed financial decisions before the event and also eliminates surprises down the road.

This petition calls for:

• Greater cost transparency for exhibitors
• An end to practices such as bundling and forced shipments.
• Discounts to be offered to both the exhibitor and the exhibitor’s third party contractor
• The elimination of hidden benefits such as undisclosed discounts between the general service contractor and the trade show, convention, and congress organizers.
• An end to exclusive facility contract, allowing all qualified suppliers who meet the technical requirement to compete for the right to provide goods and services in a given facility.

What most of them unfortunately learned later-on, was that this partnership was really a one-way street. Yes they got the business and yes they got their plaques and certificates, but in the end what they really got was dictated to. Many of them told me that they would be given a three year contract and that each year after the initial year they were REQUIRED to lower their price, regardless of material increases, regardless of labor increases, regardless of energy cost increases. They were basically told that in order to remain a “partner” they had to improve efficiencies each year and pass those savings (real or not) on to the customer. So the partnership was really not a partnership at all but rather a typical old-fashioned vendor-customer relationship where no matter how much circumstances had changed for the vendor the customer was really calling all the shots.

Eventually the pricing pressure and the lack of a real partnership drove a lot of these injection molders literally out of business. Others simply decided to stop selling to the car-makers because they were basically shipping dollars out the door with every truckload of parts. This isn’t a partnership. This is a dictatorship. True partnerships are win-win, and this was “win” (for the customer) and “lose” (for the vendor).

A true partnership starts with the understanding that both sides have needs. A true partnership allows one party to share those needs with the other and to have those needs understood and incorporated into an agreement that very simply allows both parties to make money. There is this misguided sentiment that even if a company loses money on every order, they can “make it up in volume”. All this philosophy does is allow a company to go out of business faster – but with a nice résumé – to serve as its epitaph.

I still believe in partnerships, but in this world I wonder how many other people actually embrace this concept? True partnerships require a level of transparency and an even deeper level of trust.

A great vendor partner looks for ways to save their clients money. They provide free stuff – advice, ideas, samples, and prototypes. They don’t take advantage of last minute orders by tacking on rush charges when they themselves aren’t incurring any extra cost.

Meanwhile, a great client partner recognizes the value a great vendor adds to their business. They have a sense of loyalty, share sensitive information and demonstrate their trust by living up to their end of the bargain. I wish we lived in a world where the term “fair profit” was more clearly defined and agreed upon. But since we don’t, we have to rely on partnerships that live up to the real meaning of the word. In the end, in a true partnership, both parties share the risk and both parties share the reward.

And as Henry Ford once said, “The reward for a job well done is the opportunity… for more work.”

That’s JB’s space for now. Thanks for visiting.

In this video, Christine Peterson, CMO from TripAdvisor, talks about marketing in tough times to consumers by highlighting value.  But what she’s really marketing in transparency.  Many of the new features that TripAdvisor offers just uncover the true price of a plane ticket and the true comparison of pricing on different items such as hotels and resort packages.

This is a very smart approach that can apply to many businesses.  If customers are asking for lower costs without really comparing fairly, they’re losing and you’re losing.  If customers are given tools to see exactly what the costs are, then they will see where true value is.  This can ultimately be more appealing than the lowest price tag.

The problem is that we usually operate in an environment where low price is king and partnerships are just a reason to bring down prices past the point of profitability (See JB’s Space: What’s A True Partnership).  Laying the groundwork for customers to compare apples to apples, be transparent in business practices may be a better strategy in tough times than simply trying to offer the lowest price.

Marketing value can be tricky, but transparency can help you avoid a commodity spiral and build business based on true partnerships.