The Zeitgeist

Special Markets Dialogues was held a couple weeks ago. The meeting was my third time in the Facilitator's chair and as in prior years the discussion was lively, enlightening, and significant. For those of you who weren't at the table, here are some takeaways:

• There is much hue and cry about End Users. Like albino whales, we know they exist, but not that many of us have ever seen one. Associations are spending considerable effort, money, and energy trying to speak to End Users, but one example from my good friend Paul Kiewiet underscored the challenge: he has an opt-in newsletter he offers to "buyers" at Kellogg's. Right now he has 175 registrants. 175. In one company. Can ANY media effort reach that deep into companies? No.
• The "alphabet soup" of our market (IRF, IMA, IMRA, PPAI, IPC, EIEIO) does not resonate with many people. Even the cognosenti assembled at Dialogues had trouble understanding the interactions and interconnections--what chance does the "average" market member have?
• The Chicago Motivation Show needs assistance. The New York Premium Show needs assistance. The PPAI Expo is great, but needs assistance educating its attendees about Brands. Our market's trade shows need "excitement".
  
• And on that subject, Mike Murrell sent me a blurb that indicates trade show attendees in general don't like their Trade Show Experience either. They cite the cost, the lack of value, and the absence of " buzz". Sound familiar?
• Everyone believes 2008 will be a good year, but 2009 is very uncertain. The high school graduation class of 2009 will be the largest in US history, and 2009 also marks the first year that Baby Boomers receive Social Security benefits. The combination of parents raiding their 401(k) funds for college and Baby Boomers raiding their 401(k) funds for retirement will place considerable strain on financial markets. Combine that with a very uncertain political climate (and a likely Democratic Washington, DC) and it's cause for concern...
  
• The recent Brands and Incentive House Mixer held in Noo Yawk was also dissected. My favorite comment from that soiree was from an Incentive House person (who will remain unnamed) who said "we're not in the business of selling merchandise--we're in the business of selling solutions to our clients". For those of us who ARE in the business of selling merchandise this is a 55 gallon drum of cold water thrown on our fires...

We talked about lots more, but those are the high spots. We didn't find answers, but we did ask new questions and that's an accomplishment in itself. The mix of attendees provided us with as close to a 360-degree view of the market as possible, and we touched on at least 3 of the 100 points on the agenda (sorry-inside joke).

All in all, another wonderful conference. Now, let's see what this august group can do to create leadership in a market where no one entity has 1% of it...


Pete

An icon leaves us

Walt Tabor died in October. I learned about this yesterday, when Karen Renk sent an announcement to IMA Board members. For many in our market, the name "Walt Tabor" doesn't ring any bells. Or, he's just a name on a scholarship given out by IMRA.

But to those of us who have a little more dirt under our fingernails, Walt WAS the New York Incentive Show. He was also publisher of Potentials Magazine when Potentials Magazine was considerably more than it is today. This is a man with a Career Worth Considering, and one whose memory we should cherish.

And in his role as Head Cheerleader of the New York Show, he would challenge any supplier to tell him why they wouldn't exhibit in the largest trade fair in our marketplace. He and I would often get into it about the show as it began its slide into non-relevance, but he always argued his position with eloquence and passion.

Walt was also tireless in his efforts to further the marketplace, and he gave of his time, his energy, and especially his money, without which IMRA would not have been able to continue the scholarships that bear the names of Walt and his late wife Anna.

Karen said in her note to us "We have lost a good friend". We've also lost one of our market's most influential supporters, a man whose accomplishments were pre-Google (which is why, if you search for him, few links appear), but significant nonetheless. He was gracious and willing to share information with market newbies (including me, in the late '80s), information that helped us understand and appreciate the market in which we were making a living.

Sleep well, Walt. See you on the other side, where you're probably already working on busting my chops...


Pete

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln...

My phone rang on Tuesday, and a good friend was on the other end, telling me about the untimely and immediate demise of Briggs & Riley's effort in the Incentive business. In the space of 24 hours they went from "in the business" to "sorta out of the business" and Kevin Hagan was shown the door.

Ancedotal evidence says that part of the decision was based on the fortunes of US Luggage, the owner of the B&R Brand. And that's where I got really confused. Let's see-the retail side of the business is tanking, so let's get rid of the Special Markets business, the profitable business.

I spoke to Kevin later in the week and he shared with me that there was a lack of enthusiasm by USL to expend the funds necessary to make a fuller presence in the market. But in the relatively short time Kevin was there they had built a multi-million dollar business that by all measurements was covering its costs and making money.

Here we go again--another Brand deciding the "view isn't worth the climb". But is that really it? It's impossible to know for sure without being in the room where the decisions are made. But there is a case to be stated that suppliers can enter and exit the business and not lose as much as one might think.

"Momentum" is something we talk about a lot in our market. Kevin might not be at B&R, but the work he did will continue to generate business for months, possibly even a year or two after he leaves. If B&R agrees to ship current clients they might find they can retain 50%, perhaps even more of the business they have now without anyone in the Big Chair.

This bodes ill for Channel Specialists, especially those whose Brands sell to Service Award and Incentive Houses. Those clients have programs that last 18-24 months, and once it's placed in the program, it continues to redeem until re-merchandised. Are some Brands so sneaky that they know this, and whack their B-to-B managers yet still keep some percentage of the market?

Nah...

Pete