A Case of Situational Ethics?

Editor's note: In the Jan. 21 issue of Tradeshow Week, Senior Editor Heidi Genoist wrote an op-ed titled “Evil of Exclusivity Is Relative” concerning stories published over the previous month and a half on the issue of exclusive contracts, as well as an earlier letter to the editor from one of this week's letter writers.

Dear Editor:

I'm glad you saw through that statement regarding exclusives. It does seem to be a position of “situation ethics,” which I define as maneuvering your ethics to accommodate any situation. The irony you point out should not be lost on your readers.

Mr. (Scott) Bennett, whom I've known for well over 40 years, did misspeak in terms of the outcome in Texas many years ago, although not intentionally. It is in fact true that, in a verdict directed by the Texas judge away from the jury, it was ruled that the plaintiffs failed to prove their anti-trust allegation.

If memory serves me correctly, the deciding factor was based on the concept of “relevant market” and whether the plaintiffs could prove that exclusion from the (Offshore Technology Conference) would do irreparable harm to their companies in the marketplace. The companies attempted to define the market as the OTC show, while the judge saw the market as the United States.

The finding was that exclusion in Houston did not constitute elimination from opportunity in other markets, where the companies were free to offer their services.

In essence, I believe Mr. (Doug) Ducate also misspeaks in stating that the court ruled on the show's right to make rules as they see fit. While this may in fact be true, the outcome of that case was based on another point of law and, if I recall correctly, did not specifically come to that conclusion.

The OTC show was truly a unique event back in the late '70s and early '80s, and required its leaders to provide creative solutions to the challenges it presented. Having lived through that era, I can see where they thought that was the way to go for that event.

Fortunately, everyone moved on and the industry has benefited from the intense competition that has developed over the last two decades. As Mr. Bennett implies in his comments, it would surely be a mistake to return to a time where exhibitors had no choice in selecting their service provider.

Hopefully, through dialogue such as this, our industry leaders will address these issues in a manner that allows for solutions that provide benefit to the one and only customer we exist to service, the exhibitor.

Steven Johnson

President

Renaissance Management

Stone Mountain, Ga.

Dear Editor:

In your editorial about exclusive contracts, you incorrectly wrote about the Offshore Technology Conference (OTC) lawsuit when you wrote, “… exhibitor-appointed contractors sued to be able to do business on the show.”

All three of the plaintiff companies worked on OTC both before and after the lawsuit. In fact, evidence presented at trial revealed they made a greater profit on OTC than they did on many other shows they worked.

The rules they complained about were called the Advance Notification Rule and the Access Rule. They each provided directions on how to gain access to work at OTC, and all three plaintiffs followed the procedures and worked at OTC for many years. At one point in time, there were more than 50 exhibitor-appointed contractors doing installation and dismantle work at OTC.

You closed by expressing confusion about associations objecting to exclusive contracts when the organizers themselves then enter into exclusive contracts on their shows.

The association positions are really asking for freedom to choose their contractors (and) suppliers. They are opposed to facilities entering into unnecessary exclusive contracts, thus eliminating their ability to bring in suppliers of their choice.

Some of these contractors may be doing many shows for that organizer. They know the events and the other contractors on the team well and bring efficiencies and safeguards from experience with an event that a new supplier cannot bring.

In some cases a supplier representative may have more experience with an event than the organizer. And some organizers have national contracts in place with suppliers to do all of the organizer's shows.

Asking an organizer to leave his contracting team at home is like asking a football team owner to come play a big game in your facility and you will provide the coaches and managers. They need to leave their management team behind.

Exclusive contracts are not only a reasonable practice for the exhibition business, in some cases they are a necessity. Imagine the confusion that could be created by a show appointing multiple material handling companies or multiple electricians all tying into the same system.

Facilities have very valid reasons for insisting on providing exclusive services when it comes to services that invade the facility operating systems.

The problem arises when a facility chooses to provide a number of exclusive services for reasons of their own with no apparent valid reason. The organizer's choice in that case could be whether to use that facility.

One of the primary responsibilities of an exhibition organizer is to develop rules and regulations related to an exhibition, and then consistently apply those rules and regulations. Whenever two parties disagree on a policy or practice, there should be an opportunity for dialogue to better understand the other's point of view and to explain your position.

If an organizer does not like the rules imposed by a facility and dialogue wasn't successful in finding a middle ground, he can either accept the terms or try to find an alternative venue to hold the event.

Similarly, if an exhibiting company does not like the rules and regulations of a given exhibition, they should try to find an alternative event that will help them achieve their business objectives and that has rules they like better.

And finally, if an exhibitor-appointed contractor does not like an event's rules and regulations, they can always try to find work in the other 10,000 business-to-business exhibitions held in the U.S. each year, many of which may have work rules they like better.

Douglas L. Ducate

President and CEO

Center for Exhibition Industry Research

Dallas

Letters to the editor of Tradeshow Week are always welcome. Please send them to Editor-in-Chief Michael Hart (by mail) Tradeshow Week, 5700 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 120, Los Angeles, Calif. 90036-5804; (by e-mail) hartm@reedbusiness.com; or (by fax) (323) 965-5306.