Attendees in the Exhibit Hall Aren’t the Whole Picture
Podcasters have been having a (sometimes heated) discussion for the past two years about metrics for advertisers. Jason Van Orden, one of our speakers for Podcast Expo and an author on the subject, has fanned the fire again with his posts about the subject and I’m glad he has because it’s a discussion that needs to keep happening. But naturally there is a strong lesson for tradeshow owners here that is unrelated to podcast metrics – more on that in a minute.
For some reason, podcasts have been held to a higher standard than all other media when it comes to impressions. If someone only downloads part of a podcast, does that still count as an impression? Scott Bourne, also one of our speakers, says it beautifully here, in a comment on Jason’s post, but here is a clip:
“When I ask them if they only pay magazine publishers for ads when the magazine staff can prove the subscribers did a “complete read” of the magazine, they give me a blank stare. When I ask them if they only pay television producers for ads when the TV staff can prove the viewers watched the “complete commercial,” they give me a blank stare.”
Magazine advertisers don’t pay for ads in only the magazines that were read cover to cover, and TV/radio advertisers don’t pay only when they can prove the viewer/listener saw the entire show. That, coupled with the fact that most ads in podcasts are at the beginning, should begin to settle all of these arguments – partial downloads DO count and are worth every penny as much as a complete download.
Now, what does this have to do with tradeshows? As show organizers we are constantly talking about attendees in the door – in fact rarely do we talk about anything else. Yes it’s important – probably the most important thing about how we sell our events to potential sponsors and exhibitors. But the impressions that are made on the website, in the direct mail we send and in the email marketing we do, is almost an afterthought in terms of the value to the exhibitor. Sure it’s in the bullet points of what they get for their money, but do we really do enough to show the value of those impressions? I’d say we don’t.
Even when that attendee doesn’t come to the show, the sponsor’s and exhibitor’s name (and perhaps logo) have been in front of them in one way or another – and that is valuable! I’m not saying it’s as valuable as a face-to-face conversation in the booth, but let’s not get in the habit of totally discounting the value exhibitors get from getting in front of attendees (by way of direct mail, email and the show website) who don’t actually make it to the event.
The attendee on the show floor is a complete download – the prospect who visits the show website, gets the email or reads the show brochure is a partial download – and BOTH have value and are what we are offering to exhibitors and sponsors.
December 4th, 2006 at 12:14 pm |
[...] You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response or trackback from your ownsite. [...]
December 8th, 2006 at 8:47 pm |
You make a very good point Tim. Not many show organizers do as good a job as you do in getting exposure for their exhibitors / sponsors.
That might have something to do with why they fail to point that out to their exhibitors.
April 10th, 2007 at 1:29 pm |
GREAT point, and a major reason why folks should check out the Open Metrics Initiative (www.openmetrics.org). There was a great session on this at PodCamp NYC and basically there’s a movement afoot (this one) to help establish the metrics that will best help both advertisers and content producers agree on how metrics for subscribable media should work. To me, this movement is an essential initiative to become a part of this year as our community has a HUGE stake in visible demonstrating ROI to advertisers in the near future.