The Gathering Of The B's
A Message From Radio Ink Publisher Eric Rhoads
Shortly after the Telecom Act and the beginning of radio consolidation, I wrote that the radio conference of the future would be a gathering of about 12 people. I was wrong. It's a gathering of less than a thousand people (in my estimation).
A Message From Radio Ink Publisher Eric Rhoads
Shortly after the Telecom Act and the beginning of radio consolidation, I wrote that the radio conference of the future would be a gathering of about 12 people. I was wrong. It's a gathering of less than a thousand people (in my estimation). Of course, in their heydays, the NAB Radio Show alone gathered six or eight thousand and RAB gathered over three thousand. But the two conferences were combined for the first time this year, as a move to keep both alive in difficult economic conditions.
I've had several people ask if I like the idea of a combined conference by the NAB and the RAB -- I refer to them as "the B's -- and if I feel it was a success.
First, I applaud the effort. Anything to keep these conferences and these organizations strong is a positive thing. Second, I believe the organizations should be merged, if only for the cost savings on backroom operations, in the style of radio consolidation. Why duplicate accounting, PR, and marketing?
Though NAB is about radio and TV and RAB is only about radio, there is a rumor that RAB is in talks with the Television Bureau of Advertising to provide training and to merge some efforts anyway. Maybe RAB rolled into NAB as a "super trade organization" for broadcast radio and TV, for both legislative and promotional efforts, is worth exploring. Especially since dues are harder to cough up and the conferences have been rolled together. I would think the divisions would need to maintain separate boards so each would stay mission-focused.
But ... back to the conference.
But ... back to the conference.
I have to admit I found this first joint Radio Show to be confusing. I'm not sure if was having everyone under one roof or if it was the roof itself. The Grand Hyatt in DC, though nice, is a difficult place to have a conference. The show was spread across three floors, and it was difficult to find a place to focus or just stand and talk.
Also, the trade show floor was a disaster. No booths but tables, placed in squares with an open middle. I saw two competitors in the same square -- how dumb is that? How can a vendor carry on a serious conversation with a customer when a competitor is within three feet of him?
Plus, we're so used to seeing booths that when we see a logo on one side of a square, the assumption is that the square belongs to that company -- not four companies.
The table concept was driven either by a lack of exhibit space or unwillingness to pay for booths, but it's almost impossible for companies to carry on business from tiny tables in narrow aisles. It was not vendor-friendly, not good for signage, no room for people, crowded and noisy. I would also like to see the tech exhibits in their own section, just to make things easier for attendees. So thumbs down on the show's "Marketplace" floor.
Both B's did a great job with their content, but there was simply no sense of continuity to get people together. Just about everyone got lost at some point, and everyone found it hard to gather. The small lobby was about the only networking option, meeting rooms were hard to find, and it was difficult to just run into people, which is the main value of any conference.
Both B's did a great job with their content, but there was simply no sense of continuity to get people together. Just about everyone got lost at some point, and everyone found it hard to gather. The small lobby was about the only networking option, meeting rooms were hard to find, and it was difficult to just run into people, which is the main value of any conference.
I always loved the RAB conference and the energy of the gathering of sales and management people, but that got lost this time.
The joint-show concept can work in the future if the B's handle the conference like the spring NAB Show, where the RTDNA, the TVB, and other groups have their own dedicated spaces, so the sales management types can gather in one area while the programming and tech types gather in their own areas.
The first joint Radio Show will not go down as one of the great radio conferences, though it would have made a huge difference if the facility been a little better. Both organizations serve an important purpose, and there's no reason not to meld their conferences.
The first joint Radio Show will not go down as one of the great radio conferences, though it would have made a huge difference if the facility been a little better. Both organizations serve an important purpose, and there's no reason not to meld their conferences.
Overall, the B's get an A for effort and intent, an A for content, but a C for the conference overall and a D for the exhibit floor and the conference facility. A big problem is that the level of whining about these issues was high, and that could reduce future attendance.
But the intent was certainly good, and I do think the conferences should stay together. We should give the B's another shot to get it right.
Eric Rhoads
Radio Ink
Radio Ink
