[Steve_S]

folklore said:

It seems that the argument Moof and Steve_S have is that third party development and the Mac experience so dominated by Apple that a completely independent event simply cannot occur.

No, that's not at all what I'm suggesting. Trade show attendance has been down in recent years, not just with Macworld. Take the mega CES show for example. It's been down for 2 years in a row. Last year's attendance alone saw a drop of over 30,000 people. Other trade shows are suffering too.

While there is still some value for attending trade shows, in the age of the internet, there are other more effective ways of getting exposure for products. Years ago, this was the only way for some vendors. Now, there are many other options. Right now, the costs for vendors are quite expensive and especially during a difficult economy, companies have to be careful where they spend their money.

Apple dropping out of the Macword event is HUGE. While it's difficult to justify any specific percentage, I'd imagine Apple's presence along with their keynote announcements are at least 50% of the draw to the show. Without Apple, there is no need for most to attend. I've attended many Macword shows over the years, but have absolutely no interest in attending one without Apple. Worse, this often has a domino effect. When larger vendors hear that Apple (the show's anchor) is pulling out, other large vendors are sure to do the same. What's left will essentially be a flea market like mix of much smaller tiered vendors. Yes, the educational programs, etc. are all nice, but I suspect they were never the major draw of the show. Time will tell.

Finally, history doesn't favor Macword's success without Apple. If the Macworld expo were capable of reinventing itself, why didn't it do so with the east coast show? Sorry, but I don't have a lot of confidence in IDG now doing what it wasn't able to do before.

Quote

I think they're wrong. Gosh, I hope they're wrong. Apple should hope that they're wrong too, because if the Mac experience for users and developers is that shallow, the platform is in trouble.

I hope I'm wrong too. Apple obviously doesn't care. They're also not shy of letting us know their own store traffic dwarfs the traffic from Macworld events on a regular basis.

Quote

If the show changes from "What will Apple announce?" to "What do you use your Mac for, how do you do it, and why do you do it?" then I think the future is bright.

The problem with that theory is that there is a huge gap in interest between "What will Apple announce?" and "What do you use your Mac for?". What remains to be seen is whether the latter is enough to sustain a trade show. I'd be more than surprised if it were.

Quote

Ultimately, that's what it's about, isn't it? The shiny new doodad from Apple is nice and all, but my Mac matters to me because it helps me get work done.

I think there needs to be some excitement and interest for the trade show. Apple provided that well. In this day and age, companies aren't going to hold their product announcements for a Macworld show. That may happen by coincidence, but it won't be planned. A show with out excitement will be a show without an audience which in turn will be show without vendors. It's a vicious death spiral and I'm more than skeptical of IDG being able to keep the show afloat, at least in any meaningful way.

[Chris Breen]

Steve_S said:

> Finally, history doesn't favor Macword's success without Apple. If the Macworld expo were capable of reinventing itself, why didn't it do so with the east coast show? Sorry, but I don't have a lot of confidence in IDG now doing what it wasn't able to do before.

This one's easy. Because the west coast show still existed. Vendors could opt to do a single show. Apple could still muscle Expo management over what it could and couldn't do with the east coast show because it had the west coast show to hang over their heads.

So, in this case, history is no help.

[Peter Cohen]

[quote name='folklore']
>

Moof

> Can you explain why Boston went out of business a year or 2 after Apple pulled out?


I don't have firsthand knowledge, so I'm guessing. It was probably a combination of two things. First, the event probably didn't change enough. It probably looked like an "Apple-less Macworld Expo" instead of a truly new event. Second, it had to compete with the west coast Macworld Expo, which didn't have to change at the time.

Vendors had complained bitterly for years about the east coast show, long before the event moved back to Boston from New York. Many, many vendors with whom I'd spoke from 1999 or so onward noted that Macworld Expo was virtually the only trade show their company exhibited at twice a year, and that it significantly ate into their marketing budget for the year. It also put the onus on some vendors, including Apple, to time their product releases around a trade show calendar, which, at least for publicly-held companies, had stock performance connotations as well.

What's more, New York was a very expensive city to hold a trade show in, and the cost of exhibiting wasn't significantly less to vendors in Boston than it was in New York. Combine that with a first-year event that happened in a venue (the Boston Convention & Exhibition Center) that was far removed from any sort of hub of social activity after the show, and you had a recipe for disaster.

Boston isn't as much of a media hub as New York is, which meant there was less broad mainstream (TV, newspaper, etc.) media interest in the event, another strike against the Boston show.

Apple's refutation of the Boston show certainly gave vendors a reason not to participate, but many were looking for any excuse to drop that event, anyway.

Yeah, bringing the show back to Boston was a mistake. And yeah, Apple pulling up stakes from the Boston show certainly helped hasten its demise. But suggesting that Apple's decision to stop going to the Boston event was the singular reason why that event failed is plainly ignorant of a lot of the mitigating circumstances.

[Moof_in_Charge]

> First, the event probably didn't change enough. It probably looked like an "Apple-less Macworld Expo" instead of a truly new event.
With all due respect, first you should find out the details about Boston before debating SF. They did change the format (somewhat) but it died.
> Macworld Expo doesn't have to be about major Apple announcements.
That was the draw to get people in the door in other words, that was generating an awful amount of traffic.. in other words generating ATTENDANCE. Something vendors and exhibitors like to see
> The problem I see is rebranding.
The problem is not re-branding. The problem is relevance.
> enough people can Think Different(ly) about the show, and if the show can evolve away from its past, it can survive.
Well, that is the question. I am digging deep to see what would make me want to go there instead of spending the time money corporate sponsorship at Apple U or CES? Let me make it abundantly clear, panels, lacking-conferences and the ever thinning rank of exhibitors is not enough! Not anymore! So let's see what they're going to do. I predicted my outcome and I hope I am wrong.
As far as Macworld conference execs reading this thread? I am sure someone has and just as that, I am pretty sure that they dismiss the outcome as "naaaa wont happen" well I suppose I would have to believe I am going to survive before I sign up for any bloody combat!
That's my 2 cents.

[Moof_in_Charge]

> Yeah, bringing the show back to Boston was a mistake. And yeah, Apple pulling up stakes from the Boston show certainly helped hasten its demise. But suggesting that Apple's decision to stop going to the Boston event was the singular reason why that event failed is plainly ignorant of a lot of the mitigating circumstances.
[/quote]
I don't know if I like being called ignorant but the plain "undisputed fact" is that the conference folded after Apple left. Once again, for years and years the exhibitors were willing to eat the cost to be there alongside Apple regardless of their complaining. They showed up because Apple brought the people in....Yeah, you can sell it any which way you want and excuse it any which way you want.. but in the end what killed it was Apple pulling out...
Pulling out of NYC was a bone. Going to Boston was even a bigger bone. Here is a list of places you could have gone if cost was an issue to attempt to keep the East coast alive. Philadelphia, Charlotte, New Orleans, Miami, Atlanta to name a few, but the point is, it didn't matter where you went, the exhibitors wouldn't have come because Apple was not going to be there!
You can put a lipstick on it anyway you want, call me any names you want, but the "UGLY TRUTH" is what I said.

[Peter Cohen]

Moof

That's my 2 cents.

The show's doomed without Apple. Yeah, we got it, moof. We got it about a dozen posts ago. Do us all a favor and pick another topic to beat into the ground instead, huh?

[Moof_in_Charge]

> the show's doomed without Apple. Yeah, we got it, moof.
[/quote]
Most of my posts have been replies to individuals. I get that you have an urge to be rude but try and subside if/when you can.
So far you called me ignorant now you're telling me to STFU! Nice Peter, did you get training for this or does it come naturally?

[Chris Breen]

Moof

> So far you called me ignorant

Actually, he simply said you were ignorant of the facts, which , given the number of times you've said you were "guessing" this or that, you seem willing to admit. It's when you extend those guesses to fact that some take you to task.

[jazzace]

Wow, that was a struggle trying to wade through the posts. It seemed like half the posts kept making the same argument over and over and over again. I always thought that a position with merit stands on its substance, rather than needing to be constantly reiterated. (I sense another reply coming on.)

For me, Macworld C & E is about the Conference, with the Expo being a very nice bonus. I went to the 2008 Conference (Mac IT stream) and it fundamentally changed a key part of how I do my job. It was a lot of money, but it was worth it. I can probably afford to go every three years, so I hope it is still around then. If not, IDG should keep the Conference part alive, perhaps even taking it on the road. There are definitely competitors in this space (MacMania cruises come to mind), but the Macworld brand continues to be strong.

Vertical market conferences still thrive, even in the computer space (e.g., FileMaker's DevCon is still a must for many). I attend about a conference a year in my other field of interest (music). Of the two events I regularly attend, one is a 14000 participant event with an incredible trade exhibition (about Macworld size, but no one booth as huge as Apple had). The conference programme is solid (rarely outstanding) but luckily it's only $100 to get through the door. It continues to grow: it is moving to a larger facility this year. Most of the value of attending that conference is contact with the people that attend.

The other event draws about 400 paying conference attendees worldwide (about 1500 total participants), is held biennially, lasts a full week, has only a dozen exhibitors, but is the best of the best for content. The value for the $350 registration fee is the content and the close contact with people at the top of the field.

Macworld C & E could survive in either of these two forms, IMO. It's true, there's no guarantee that a consumer-oriented show in any field will survive under current circumstances. Should Macworld Expo eventually fold, I'm not sure that you'll be able to lay it at the feet of Apple's departure; the economy will have a big part. Luckily, Macworld has a conference that can attract Mac professionals, which I think has a longer-term viability so long as it continues to attract top-flight instructors.