In Reply to: RE: Doug.... posted by Doug Schneider on January 18, 2009 at 13:30:48:
I started doing CES in 1989. We did both winter and summer. Back the, CES was no easier to deal with than today. I watched the union people move empty shipping containers through the McCormick lobby and to the end of the open patio, where they dropped the boxes three stories to the ground floor garage, where they were stored. More than one box was destroyed by that process, with no compensation from CES or the unions- how do you get your gear back home without boxes??
Over the years, paying for abuse was commonplace at CES. One year I found that our name was not on the door, nor in the showguide, nor on the computors! I began to wonder what I had paid for. The name finally appeared during the second half of the 3rd day. **After** missing several important contacts, who thought I was just being flaky for not being there.
CES offered no compensation; in fact IME its not company policy to admit to making mistakes.
If I had to point to a reason for the existence of T.H.E. Show, it would be that I am not alone- there are many manufacturers that have come to the conclusion that paying for abuse is not worth what you get when you pay for it. T.H.E. Show was founded on the idea that High End audio has different requirements that CES is unable to provide:
1) flexibility when handling delicate and expensive equipment
including ready room access by exhibitor personnel
2) responsiveness to individual exhibitor's needs
3) responsiveness to mistakes
There is no question that T.H.E. Show would not exist without CES. In fact, it exists (IME) solely because of CES, on account of CES being unable to adequately supply the needs of high end audio in an industry show.
I don't expect that we will get the same foot traffic, nor the same coverage. We also don't get the cost and more importantly, the extreme hassles. The attention we **do** get is from interested buyers, which is of course what a trade show is for. CES, IMO, exists for reasons other than being a trade show.
I don't mind at all that you yourself were not there, and I appreciate the coverage that has been given in the past. But I do not agree that we **should** be at CES any more than I agree that I **should** be abused; IME the two are the same.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- FWIW - Ralph 01/19/0915:08:23 01/19/09 (10)
- RE: FWIW - Doug Schneider 06:48:56 01/20/09 (9)
- RE: FWIW - Ralph 09:54:09 01/20/09 (0)
- Very strange thinking.... - alan m. kafton 08:47:09 01/20/09 (7)
- RE: Very strange thinking.... - Doug Schneider 09:29:49 01/20/09 (6)
- We're so sorry, Uncle Albert.... - alan m. kafton 10:41:42 01/20/09 (1)
- RE: We're so sorry, Uncle Albert.... - Doug Schneider 13:21:57 01/20/09 (0)
- RE: Very strange thinking.... - Jonathan Tinn 10:20:29 01/20/09 (3)
- RE: Very strange thinking.... - Doug Schneider 13:19:23 01/20/09 (2)
- What hubris.... - alan m. kafton 18:46:38 01/20/09 (1)
- RE: What hubris.... - Doug Schneider 20:35:10 01/20/09 (0)