The only explanation I can divine for such seemingly unconditional
acceptance of these ethereal environments is that they must be
represented by an e-CVB out there somewhere.
Now if it’s time to expand our category to include places without ZIP
Codes, by all means bring on the competition. That’s not only welcome
and healthy, but also vital to raising our own bar on excellence. But
with this access to the powerful commercial image that trade shows
represent, we must also demand accountability.
Before selecting the Internet to site your meeting, or considering an
electronic option as a participant, I think our mindset as decision
makers should be to automatically compare these offerings to physical
alternatives. If Internet sites want to be considered for locating
meetings, let’s hold them to the same scrutiny we would impose on any
other venue-to-venue ROI comparison. After all, the most affordable
“anywhere” is still way-overpriced if it fails to engage participants
and deliver on measurable objectives defined up-front.
Let’s see how virtual venue offerings stand up toe-to-toe against real
CVB biddings.
Meeting planners need to hear from all sides if they’re truly to serve
the organizational constituencies they represent (and ensure their own
job security). Once the voices of the players are brought back in, I
seriously doubt that it will be virtual folks who “show” the
professionals in our great industry “how it should be done.”
Dell Deaton
Proteus TradeShow Marketing
