If the recent Paris Region Tradeshows event held at the French Ambassador’s residence in London proved one thing, it’s that the French capital still draws the biggest crowd from the European fashion and design creative industries. If the exhibition directors I spoke to are to be believed, every event in Paris had very little drop-off in exhibitors this year and, typically, a hundred new companies taking a stand for the first time.
This year the London event was attended, as always, by representatives from Paris shows including the fashion tradeshows Pret A Porter Paris and Mode City, as well as interior design show Maison&Objet and jewellery show Eclat de Mode.
But despite the core purpose of the event, winning new business and exhibitors from the UK, you’d be forgiven for thinking Paris is, in fact, satisfied with the amount of exhibitions business it has. One organiser I spoke to certainly thought so.
It turns out that not only has this organiser enjoyed a year in which their event was packed to the rafters; they actually turned away enough potential exhibitors to fill half the venue again. And this is a huge show; fledgling organisers serving the same industry have been founded with far less.
“So are you looking for a larger venue?” I enquired. “No,” they replied, “These exhibitors aren’t quite at the standard we want associated with our brand.”
“So how are you looking to accommodate them?” I asked. “We’re not,” they retorted, “Maybe when they’re more established in a few years, they can try again.”
They make a valid point - after all an event is only as strong as its exhibitors. But any way you cut it, this flies in the face of good business sense. On the one hand you’ve got a brand that needs protecting from association with substandard products, and on the other you’ve got a long queue of customers clamouring to fork out for a service you are perfectly placed to provide.
But sooner than form a new event, a ‘Lite’ equivalent of the show to house the less-established brands, this organiser saw only the unpleasant prospect of brand devaluation and reacted by telling them, effectively, that there was no room at the inn.
However, while apparently protecting their brand, there’s a strong risk this organiser is making a grave error leaving these potential organisers in the cold. Let’s not forget we are currently operating at a time when stories of forced co-location, postponement and even outright cancellation make regular appearances at our morning news meetings.
It seems shortsighted for any organiser to leave such a gap in the market unserved. These unwanted customers will, eventually, find a place to pitch their tent. Some less discerning event will take them in, or, if no such event exists, then someone will emerge to fill that space. And crucially, in years to come, when these brands have evolved into established names, they will have developed loyalty to the event that gave them a chance, and think twice before approaching the show that originally turned them away.
What happens then is that the stock of this new event that took these exhibitors in will rise, and before long, the original event will be forced to drop its standards in search of the business it turned away a few years before. Nobody stays at the top of the tree forever.
It seems to me there is a strong case to support accommodating these exhibitors, perhaps under a distinct, sub-brand of the original event. A sort of learner slope for those on wobblier legs.
Perhaps the old adage says it best: “Be nice to the people you pass on the way up – because you’ll meet them on the way down”.
Antony Reeve-Crook, Editor
