Jumping the Fence

As IMTS manager, Peter Eelman brought the exhibitor's perspective to one of the country's strongest shows

Staff -- Tradeshow Week, 10/4/2004

In 1996, when Peter Eelman began running the Intl. Manufacturing Technology Show, it was No. 4 on the Tradeshow Week 200. In fact, the show has been in the top 10 consistently since the mid-1960s, often at No. 1.

So, it would be wrong to say Eelman had to turn around the Assn. of Manufacturing Technology's IMTS when he took over for longtime manager Woody Hasemann eight years ago. (AMT has always managed the show in-house, and plans to continue doing so.)

But Eelman did make changes. At a time when the manufacturing sector needed it most, he put the show's focus squarely on the customer. As a result, when an economic downturn followed his appointment, and events in other flagging industries shrunk and even disappeared, IMTS survived.

Eelman spoke recently with TSW Senior Associate Editor Heidi Genoist about his staunch exhibitor-oriented views — views that, he believes, represent the future of the tradeshow industry.

Question: You have a background in manufacturing, not show management. How then did you learn what it takes to run a major show?

Answer: The very first day I worked after graduating from college was at a company in Pennsylvania. After I processed all the paperwork, they brought me into a room and made me look at their tradeshow booth. So, the first thing I ever touched in the manufacturing business was IMTS.

Q: Manufacturing has been hit hard in the last several years. What happened?

A: What happened was an unusual confluence of many factors. The 1998 show was the last one at the end of a golden era. We had a period up to that point when we had a large number of customers that had been buying and buying. Then, things started to dry up.

What really accelerated the slide was Y2K because, in 1998 and 1999, tons of money for capital expenditures like plant modernization were moved to IT. When Y2K came and went, the money never shifted back to the traditional capital market.

Then the recession set in strongly, then 9/11, and all the other factors — the foreign exchanges, offshore manufacturing, etcetera — snowballed.

Q: Did show revenue decline?

A: Since we have continued to hold our pricing to assist our members and exhibitors, who have been going through troubling times, our revenue has declined proportionately to the size of the show; that is, less than 10 percent including the area of the facility, which we are not planning on utilizing. Overall show revenue is in the range of $25 million to $30 million, depending on the prevailing economic conditions.

Q: That's not as bad as what happened to shows in some other challenged sectors. What prevented greater devastation?

A: Our products in this industry are extremely complex. It's not easy to show them in a lot of different venues. As things turned down, and it got more and more difficult for companies to justify spending money on multiple shows, we increased in attractiveness. Even as we had some drop in attendance matching employment trends, we were still the big banana. If you only came to IMTS, you were still going to get a bigger bite of buyers than by going to a lot of smaller tradeshows around the country.

Q. What was your strategy for responding to what was going on in the industry?

A: What we tried to do was maximize efficiencies of the show. We were in the process in the late 1990s of fully categorizing the show, and a big part of that was marketing it to segments that might have been doing slightly better than others. By categorizing, we could design specific ads that targeted sectors that were doing OK. For instance, in telecom, we'd say, "You have to come to the show because we have these products or pavilions for you."

Q: Were you prepared for the downturn when it hit, or did you just react?

A: From a physical standpoint, we saw it coming. And we do have flexibility in that we don't have a point system (for assigning exhibit space) and the other types of things that restrict how you draw the floorplan. So, as companies changed and consolidated, we were still able to satisfy them in good locations. We could work with the exhibitors and say, "OK, you need a little less square footage, but so does everybody else." When you don't have that flexibility and the market changes, you can get tied up in knots. You have to keep everyone happy and bring the whole thing together.

Q: What did you learn during your years as an exhibitor that has helped you run tradeshows during this part of your career?

A: In the years that I was an exhibitor, I did probably as many tradeshows as anybody. I got thrown into it really quickly. I became a well-known face because of that and was asked to serve on show committees and advisory committees right away. I spent a lot of time educating myself about tradeshows too.

By the time I actually joined AMT, I had a pretty well-rounded experience of running tradeshows.

Q: But can anything prepare you for drawing a million square foot floorplan?

A: It's a daunting task, and you can prepare, but until you take a position and attack it, it has to be done your own way. I didn't do it the way people before me did. We've made a lot of changes to IMTS, a lot of it based on my experience as an exhibitor.

Q: Like what?

A: Probably the most visible change in IMTS was that we worked with our show committee to revise a bunch of rules that governed the style of exhibiting. For example, there was a restriction on the height of exhibits: 12 feet. To me, as an exhibitor, a lot of good ideas got knocked down when you had to stay under 12 feet. Looking at it from a visitor's point of view, he is a consumer who's exposed all day long to top-quality advertising.

The debate was that costs would go through the roof. But we are not in a position to dictate to our exhibitors what their investment in their own success should be. If they decide it doesn't make a difference, they can make that determination. But they should be allowed to do what they want in the booth space they invest in — of course, within reason.

The show committee heartily endorsed the removal of those restrictions. And now the show is big and bold and beautiful. When people come to this show now, they are visually stimulated.

Q: How involved in the show is the AMT board of directors?

A: I report directly to the president, but our board is involved in the ongoing functions of the show. I generally report to them and get consultation from them in our major meetings.

Q: So, you work pretty autonomously?

A: In the exhibitions department, we're given excellent latitude to use our judgment for the best interests of the show. That can be difficult in an industry that has some members and some nonmembers attending a show like ours. But the board is supportive of it being an open show, a decision that was made in the 1970s and grew it to what it is today. By pulling away from preference, it's a show that is built for visitors. They want to see the best technology in the world. They don't care what association the companies are members of. Our function as show managers is to present that in the most efficient way possible.

Q: You believe then that a focus on attendees is more important than a focus on exhibitors?

A: What I drill into our staff is that we start with the visitor. I'll debate that any day. That's where I start: focusing all we can on making it important for the visitor to attend the event. If he's excited, thrilled and we answer all the questions he has and desires he has, the exhibitors will follow, because their goal is to get exposed to the best, most qualified visitors available. By just gathering exhibitors, you can have one show and it'll be your last.

Q: How would you translate that into advice for other show managers?

A: Now that things are getting better, we as show managers can't get lazy and stop thinking about the things we need to change. If we focus on what the visitors have to see and know — because that's different all the time — and keep that in our shows, we'll be ready for the next challenge.

Q: IMTS likes to say it's done a lot to control exhibitor costs. What have you done?

A: One of the things we do, also involving the show committee, is involve exhibitors in the process of bidding out the show and hiring the general contractor. By working with the exhibitors and being open, we keep it in the best interest of show management and exhibitors. We don't pick a general contractor based on the fact they'll give us something for free. We pay for our services. It costs us some money, but we're a nonprofit organization; we exist for the benefit of our members. We drive for the best rates for them as well as the best presentation.

Q: With two years to plan each IMTS, do you have any downtime? What do you do in off years?

A: That is a part of my job I enjoy the most, the overseas work. I became a global tradeshow guy around 1984–85 when I was with the U.S. machinery division of Toyoda. Working with them, we did more shows than anybody because we needed to establish the name for machinery. Our bosses in Japan liked our methods, so we were asked to start up a company in England and then we purchased one in France. Each time, I was asked to implement the same plan we used here.

That experience has paid off for me here because we operate pavilions in foreign locations and allow our members to deal with us. We handle all the interaction with the local agents. So it's easy for a guy from Illinois to do a show in China.