SAN ANTONIO--How do you explain that a technology conference offers excellent sessions and a warm weather location during one of the coldest times of the year, yet the show's exhibit floor is virtually empty?
That was the case at this year's LOMA Winter Technology Conferences held here. And when I asked some of the more knowledgeable people in our business what they thought, the response was, "There are just too many tech shows." They mentioned the usual suspects (IASA, ACORD LOMA, ISOTech), but also included conferences such as RIMS and ACE. I was quick to point out, however, that the latter are not technology shows, per se. I also emphasized that there are no other similar conferences in close temporal proximity to the LOMA winter offering. Further, I'm not hearing exhibitors as a group complaining that they only have so much marketing money to go around.
Some speculated that because the Super Bowl was played last Sunday, people weren't going to fly out that night to a conference. I could see that, but then all the conference organizers would have to do is move the event back one week to that dreadful weekend when no football happens. Maybe that's the answer. I hope so, because this show makes sense--a good life insurance tech show is needed. The educational sessions here were well attended and well-received, with the possible exception of one where the presenter gave a 30-minute commercial for his particular institution. Believe me, no one was impressed.
Another possible answer is that at some conferences, the attendees are really there to be enlightened and educated--not sold on a new application or platform or service. I honestly think that was the case here, and there's nothing wrong with that. The attendees spoke with their feet, going to the parts of the conference that were meaningful for them.
Are there too many insurance tech shows? Not at all--but that doesn't mean that show organizers don't need to think more carefully about what they're offering and what their audience wants. Just throwing a bunch of tech show elements together does not guarantee a successful conference--witness the annual life vs. p-c bickering that goes on at ACORD LOMA.
So what's your take? Were you there? Are there too many tech shows? Let's hear some more ideas.
Comments (7)
Considering the lack of enthusiasm and use of technology in our industry, I am unsurprised that we do not attend tech conventions well. Recall recently that our industry scored at the very bottom in quality and use of websites. Many of the leaders in this industry have not embraced technology, so it is a low priority. I think that is what is reflected in poor attendance at these conventions.
Posted by Craig Dolan | February 13, 2007 10:04 AM
Posted on February 13, 2007 10:04
Craig makes a good point about our lack of enthusiasm for technology, but then how do we explain the fact that the tech-oriented education sessiions at the LOMA event were well-attended? Maybe this has more to do with lack of interest in spending money?
Posted by Ara Trembly | February 13, 2007 12:34 PM
Posted on February 13, 2007 12:34
I've been waiting to bring up this issue. I think there are too many tech shows, as well as too much coverage that insurers are "behind the curve" in tech. Doesn't it occur to people that there might actually be a structural reason why insurance is a hard nut to crack for tech, given that this issue has existed for decades?
I think the problem is that insurance tackles a non-standardized contract: indemnity, or making someone whole after an accident. That is decidedly more complex that standardizing a credit card, bank account, or mortgage. Until everyone uses the same underwriting and claims systems, and cares about exactly the same data fields, insurance has this problem. The product is simply not as well-suited to standardized tech solutions as other financial products.
Todd R. Bault, FCAS
Posted by Todd Bault | February 14, 2007 12:22 PM
Posted on February 14, 2007 12:22
I go to my management software meeting to hear about how companies want us to pay for their upgrading either by throwing more work at us to do a quote & write business to actually demanding we pay download fee or access fees! I'm less than overjoyed!
There are upgrades companies can do,but quarterly bonus get in the way. Servicing their customers(us included) takes a back seat and you ask why shows are empty!
Posted by joesanders | February 15, 2007 12:58 PM
Posted on February 15, 2007 12:58
Good to see Tech issues getting a BLOG!
Interest in visiting the vendor's exhibits has dropped dramatically over the last 10 years for these trade shows. As a vendor, with costs going up dramatically to gain attention of attendees (larger booths, trade show sponsorships, cocktail hours, etc.), there is little payback other than visibility to the attendees. Most attendees to the trade shows are not buyers, and most have little interest in spending the time to learn about what it is that the vendor does.
Quite simply it is over-load for the buyer.
As a former CIO I was constantly bombarded by vendors for meetings, time-slots and opportunities to visit with vendor officers. Frankly, it cheapened the experience for me.
Are there other ways to get the message out as a vendor? Webcasts, Podcasts, downloadable content all provide more information to the customer than ever before.
Software-as-a-Service models provide mechanisms for buyers to "try it before you buy it" and are gaining increased prominance. Vertical software sales are generally big ticket purchases. Increasingly, vendors with lower license sales are seeking other ways to get to the buyer.
Buyer's attend the shows to get up to date on what other practices are out there. It is also a great way to reconnect with other professionals in the marketplace.
Without the vendors to subsidize the shows it is doubtful that companies would pay the fees to cover the costs for the associations. Some shows are being combined, and this is a good thing. Perhaps a better balance can be found than exists today.
Posted by Bill Budde | February 20, 2007 11:28 AM
Posted on February 20, 2007 11:28
Bill Budde brings up some interesting ideas about alternate ways for vendors to get information to prospects. My question is whether or not buyers--and trade show attendess in general--still value the idea of meeting someone in person, shaking hands, sharing a cup of coffee or a cocktail, and getting to know someone as a human being before you do business with their company. Personally, I like the face-to-face interaction. How do the rest of you feel?
Posted by Ara Trembly | February 20, 2007 12:24 PM
Posted on February 20, 2007 12:24
Sorry, I'm not a techy, so no html here. I am responsible for much of the technology direction, from a business standpoint in our company. I and my counterpart in IT were acutually discussing this point at the A.M. Best e-fusion conference months ago. There was a time about 8 years ago when we were attending Best's, ISOTech, Acord, etc. The times have changed in our company and many others, specifically we have upgraded! We have replaced the legacy system, we have a web presence, we engage the real dinosaurs, agency management systems.
Much of our past attendence was educational. We needed to immerse ourselves in the subject so we could begin the evaluation process. Those who attend these conferences usually go there to learn, not vacation as our counterparts who were left behind believe.
We now keep up to date more by reading than flying. We are selective in our attendance when we have an issue we feel will be served by our attendance, like my recent return from the IVANS/AUGIE conference. I'll handle my observations under the AUGIE thread.
Great forum!
Posted by scott mackey cpcu | March 2, 2007 1:29 PM
Posted on March 2, 2007 13:29