Tradeshow Malcontents

Thou art the Mars of malcontents.

— William Shakespeare

UK exhibit builder Display Wizard recently asked 100 marketers whether tradeshows have a bright future.

Their answers might disturb you: 75 said yes; 25, no.

The 25 nay-sayers cited the rising digital tide as the reason—and their nagging disappointment with organizers, who are molasses-slow to adopt new technologies.

You might, as a hard-working organizer, respond, "Sure, we're not perfect, but attendees love our event!"

Maybe, maybe not.

Late last year, the event research firm Explori found, worldwide, tradeshows earn abysmally low Net Promoter Scores from attendees (from a high of 20 in the US to a low of -6 in Asia).

To put that in context, an "average" company's Net Promoter Score ranges from 31 to 50. (The worldwide Net Promoter Score exhibitors gave tradeshows was worse: -18.)

Explori's analysts noted that attendees' low scores can't be attributed to "so-called 'hygiene factors' such as venue layout, signage or catering, but highlight far more fundamental problems." T

radeshow exhibitors aren't displaying the innovations attendees crave.

Again, as a hard-working organizer, you might say: "So what? Many thriving industries have low Net Promoter Scores."

And you'd be right: duopolistic industries (where customers have little choice) all have negative scores. (Think cable TV, for example; Comcast and Time Warner Cable both have negative Net Promoter Scores—more unhappy than happy customers.)

But the tradeshow industry isn't a duopoly.

Attendees and exhibitors have choices. They can participate only in segment-leading shows. Or only in niche shows. Or they can meet elsewhere; at virtual events or—more likely—proprietary ones.

And, as a hard-working organizer, you might say: "I'm not worried. We're used to exhibitor churn. There'll always a few malcontents."

But you should worry.

Malcontents don't just represent the portion of customers who aren't satisfied.

They represent a potential mob that can become radicalized—that can pick up the weapons of social media and declare jihad on your plush bottom line.

Gamification Supercharges Tradeshow Exhibits

Only connect! That was the whole of her sermon.

— E.M. Forster

Seven of 10 Americans believe attending events connects them to others, according to a recent survey by Eventbrite.

Among Millennials, that proportion's even higher—8 of 10.

Seven of 10 Millennials also believe events expand knowledge better than online content does, the survey reveals. And 1 of 2 attend events to have experiences they can share on social media.

For Millennials, attending events "is all about projecting to your social media network, and painting a picture of a phenomenal lifestyle," event planner Aubri Nowowiejski told Skift. "They chase experiences over things to get those likes and comments and interactions, and that dopamine fix."

If you accept Eventbrite's findings, exhibit marketers who help Millennials polish their personal brands will come out winners at tomorrow's B2B events.

Gamification is the secret sauce.

By offering them high-yield opportunities to enrich their personal brands, gamification counteracts Millennials’ unfortunate reluctance to engage in the "real world" of sales conversation.

Gamification makes networking fun and unintimidating—and delivers the all-important dopamine fix that comes when a Millennial wallflower can update his social media feeds.

One ready solution for exhibitors is PLAYBOOK, a lead-gen system that marries pre-show marketing with gamification.

With PLAYBOOK, exhibitors can not only attract large crowds of fun-seeking prospects to their booths, but get them to look up from their phones long enough to engage in conversation.

DISCLAIMER: I'm a bit biased in favor of PLAYBOOK, because it's the creation of Bob & David James. Learn more here.

Snake on a Plane

The stunning lies and Orwellian distortions that dribble from our president's mouth bother me less than his illogic.

The former are signs of a scheming mind; the latter, of an idiotic one.

This week, aboard Air Force One, a reporter asked Trump to recall the way in which he questioned Putin about Russian meddling in our November election during last week's G20 Summit.Trump replied, "Somebody said later to me, which was interesting. Said, let me tell you, if they were involved, you wouldn't have found out about it. Okay, which is a very interesting point."

More clearly said, "The Russians are so effective at clandestine interference, you cannot detect them. We have detected interference. Therefore, they could not have interfered in our election."

Philosophers call this kind of argument "proof against disproof."

Because Russian interference can never be detected, there is no possible basis for determining whether Trump's conjecture is either true or false.

Sigmund Freud drove philosophers nuts in the last century by using similar reasoning to defend his famous theory of the unconscious.

Your choice of a spouse, Freud said, shows you secretly wish to marry your mother or father. That is a fact you can neither confirm nor dispute. Why? Because any confirmation or dispute would be conscious, while the choice is unconscious.

The Russians didn't interfere in our election. That is a fact you can neither confirm nor dispute. Why? Because we have detected interference, and you cannot detect Russian interference.

Thoughts We Hate

Washington, DC's Metro this week removed transit ads placed by Milo Yiannopoulos for his new book, Dangerous.

Riders complained via Twitter the ads from the former editor of Breitbart News had no place in public.

The transit agency defended its action by claiming the ads violated its advertising guidelines.

“Advertisements that are intended to influence public policy are prohibited,” Metro said, although it decorates trains and stations endlessly with public-policy ads.

In a statement, Yiannopoulos asked Metro officials, "Is my face a hate crime?"

Until last month, a Constitutional lawyer (I'm not one) might argue, "Yes."

But the Supreme Court says differently.

In June, it unanimously ruled disparagement of minorities— Yiannopoulos' stock in trade—is protected under the First Amendment.

Justice Samuel Alito, in Matal v. Tam, wrote that government restrictions on speech expressing offensive ideas "strikes at the heart of the First Amendment.

"Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express 'the thought that we hate.'”

A Mind is a Terrible Thing to Educate

I love the poorly educated!

— Donald Trump

A new national survey by Pew Research shows a majority of Republicans (58%) believe colleges and universities are wrecking America.

That attitude is new.

Only two years ago, 54% said colleges and universities were good for the country.

On the other hand, that attitude is old—as old as the nation.

I still remember from high school the tough-love lessons of historian Richard Hofstadter's book (new at the time), Anti-Intellectualism in American Life.

Hofstadter equated intellectualism with Cartesian doubt.

Intellectualism, he said, "is sensitive to nuances and sees things in degrees. It is essentially relativist and skeptical, but at the same time circumspect and humane."

Its opposite—anti-intellectualism—is fundamentalist intransigence.

And that kind of pig-headedness, according to Hofstadter, underpins the "egalitarian sentiments of this country."

Anti-intellectualism gave America Joseph McCarthy, Billy Sunday, Charles Coughlin, George Lincoln Rockwell, Jenny McCarthy and scores of other snake-oil peddlers—blowhards celebrated for being commanding and intransigent.

And, yes, anti-intellectualism gave us Donald Trump.