By now, it probably seems like I’ve got a major down on the High-End Society and its show. Far from it. I really appreciate the efforts that have gone into making the Frankfurt and Munich shows so successful and important. But there’s no escaping the fact that, for all its success, the High-End Show was deeply and increasingly flawed: flaws that were the result of its evolution, development that failed to keep pace with a changing market and changes in the nature of the event itself.
We don’t need to improve the Munich show – what we need is a different show altogether.
If we accept the functional analysis of a B2B show laid out above and, if we also accept the fundamental critique of most current B2C shows, then combining the conclusions of both analyses suggests a radically different – but significantly more practical – solution.
If you start modelling a prestige, international event around the premise of combining good sound quality with maximising business contact, it suggests a very different approach. If we want to show/hear/demonstrate and experience what the best audio systems are really capable of, not only will 400 separate presentations of dubious quality fail to do the job, they’re to be actively avoided. Likewise, if it is to be an international event, then it needs to be organised by an international body. Taking those two propositions to their logical conclusion, I’d suggest that the way forward should look something like this:
- Rather than relying on the German High-End Society, form a new, international body, drawing on major manufacturers from Europe, the US, and Asia.
- Using their combined financial muscle, money they would probably have previously invested in Munich, appoint a new, audio-literate event organiser/team.
- The show should be structured on the basis of around ten active rooms/systems.
- Each room would present scheduled presentations (say, a 20-minute structured demonstration, followed by 10-minutes of discussion and to allow a new set of visitors to enter. If all the rooms ran on the same schedule, then it would allow visitors the chance to hear multiple, high-quality presentations, one after another.)
- The systems on show should cover a variety of price points and technologies. Each one should incorporate products from at least three, independent manufacturers.
- The choice of systems to be featured to be decided by the show organiser, on the basis of pitches made by the different sets of manufacturers, pitches that should include not just the system to be used but any additional set-up expertise to be employed and what the presentation is going to demonstrate.
- Alongside the active presentations, the venue should provide exhibition space or rooms for a large number of passive (or non-intrusive) product and company exhibits.
This model offers a number of very real advantages. It gives seasoned audiophiles and potential new customers a chance to hear what current components and systems really can offer. If exhibitors beavering away independently at the MOC can produce four or five, decent sounding rooms, working together with a stated goal, ten really good rooms should be eminently achievable. Active rooms actually inhibit the B2B conversations that are so important to exhibitors (hence all those dedicated meeting ‘hutches’ in Munich) as well as limiting interaction with the public/visitors. Switching most of the show to passive presentation might seem like a retrograde step, but actually it just shifts the emphasis from lousy sounding systems to informed conversation. Talking rather than listening might seem a step back, but several hundred rooms that are actually worth listening to is an unrealistic ambition. That has NEVER happened, so why go on expecting it to? It’s time to get real and reassess…
