There is going to be a lot of empty space on the Lower South location.

I thought it brilliant of them to have a strong NAB presence last year, making hay while Edirol was away. So Apple pulling out this year came as quite a surprise to me. I know NAB is an expensive show to attend, but there's no better place to demo your wares.

Apple says it's part of a general strategy change, attending fewer trade shows overall. But you don't sell to broadcasters at Apple retail stores.

I am not sure I am concerned for Apple's ability to market to broadcasters without participating in NAB. NAB is hugely expensive for vendors, and much less business is transacted on the show floor by major customers and high visibility manufacturers than was happening many years ago. If they take the marketing dollars saved and put people in front of regional shows and in client's offices they will be able to tell the tale quite successfully. If they assume print and internet are enough they will be injured by the reality of our querky business.

 I think we also have to keep in mind that they are already a major player and missing NAB is not likely to change that perception. AVID pulling out is a somewhat more complex issue. They seem to be groping to re-invent themselves with hopes of returning to a pre-eminent position. The market is a bit more skeptical of them than Apple for some reason, and thus their risk is higher. But if they also put more money into more direct interface in a more local setting they should be fine as well.

 

I think not attending the big shows with the argument that they do more marketing per buck by touring the US and Europe by their own, is a short sighted idea which they should rethink ASAP! A lot of those who visits NAB or IBC do that with the purpose to look at and compare products will be disappointed. Not everyone is a major broadcaster or post house, or might even come from smaller countries where Apple or Avid won't likely show up for demos.In the longer run they might even lose business opportunities!

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Mikael Olsson

MOLB - Broadcast Consultant, Swweden

I whole-heartedly agree w/ Mikael. Consumers aren't the only fickle buyers out there. When presented w/ enough options, broadcasters can be fickle too, so sometimes, companies *shock* have to go that extra mile, put in that extra effort to show that their clients matter. In this case, I think that it's not that Apple doesn't have desirable products -- I'm sure they're wildly popular to a certain crowd wherever they are (trust me, I went to the Apple press conference at NAB2007, and people were jumping up and cheering) -- it's if other companies show up to the show with comparable products, they're able to put in the face time w/ clients, thus not only getting their products out there, but also building a good relationship with their buyers.

If anything, I think Apple pulling out of the show could possibly be interpreted as a slap in the face of the broadcast industry.
 

There are a lot of reasons that a company might pull out of a show. It's tempting to call this a short-sighted business decision -- and maybe it is. But many factors might be at work. Example: While the industry rightly regards NAB as an international show, many companies fund it from their U.S. business unit. And perhaps that business unit has other fish to fry, or has been asked to significantly reduce expenses. (Remember, the share price of AAPL has dropped like a rock over the past month or so.) And NAB is very expensive to attend as an exhibitor.

After the dot-com crash and 9/11 happened in 2001, a lot of companies had to re-think priorities. We're looking at an uncertain economy right now. So it's entirely possible that Apple -- more likely, some poor VP or director within the US hierarchy -- was forced to make a tough call that has nothing to do with their evaluation of the broadcast market or this particular trade show.

Most firms at NAB make their living off the broadcast market. It's obviously a pretty modest portion of Apple's business.

Just a thought. 

Yes, Apple might not be that much depended of the Broadcast industry. But in the case with Avid, they are. And Avid has made the strategic marketing decision to pull out of expensive trade shows with the argument that smaller and more directed market campaigns gives them better results.This and the fact that software oriented products can be marketed and distributed via the net, can very well be true in the short run. And both Avid and Apple are still represented in many other manufactures NAB booths. Mikael Olsson

Last Thoughts ...

Our industry while not inconsequential, is a tiny fraction of the size of most industries. I have seen some estimates that the entire broadcast hardware industry in North America is in the vacinity of $15B. The size of the printer business of HP is almost twice that amount. Though unrelated this helps puts perspective on the question of Apple's interest in broadcast hardware and software. It is an important business to them, but the scale of potential return on investment is what will drive their participation in large trade shows. If they move 20% more product as a result of NAB it would still be a tiny increase in total corporate results. AVID is a bit different situation of course, since their principal revenue comes from media. A change of that magnitude falls immediately to the bottom line. So one might argue that if you can move the same amount of product, or argue that changing to a different sales and marketing strategy will move numbers up, then withdrawing from a show like NAB and moving costs down helps the financial performance in predictable ways. Of course the guess might be a bad one, and the result might be the reverse of what is hoped for. But since businesses that are public must show a profit to shareholders annually or risk being pummeled in the markets, we should not under estimate the complexity of making these decisions. Smaller companies live and die on trade show traffic. Larger companies have much more leverage and broader options.

I totally agree with John, but i beleive that Apple and Avid should participate at NAB because every one visiting NAB has the oportunity to test their equipment.

To summarize the discussion:

• We all agree that we would like to see Avid and Apple on the NAB floor.
• But at the same time we understand their arguments not to be there.
• However - we still think - in a selfish perspective - that they really ought to be there.
• But hey, they have their own customers to care for, so OK let them do that. See if we care!
• But if you reed this, Mrs. Avid and Mr. Apple, please come back next year!!

------------------------------------

Mikael - the voice of many (I think)

 

 Is there any word of Apple Users Groups meeting Off-Site.  They have done so in the past.

 I've been keeping my eyes and ears open for such a thing, but all I can find are a bunch of discontent bloggers. All I can find about Apple right now is some Final Cut Pro training at the Post Production World Conference, which, ironically, will be covering a host of products including Apple AND Avid.

Very simply, Apple has nothing to announce or show off this year to the broadcast industry. Last year, there was ProRes 422 and the (ineffective) integration with Sienna. Newsroom integration is eons away... and so is an efficient method of Editing-In-Place. Obviously, they can't show off iPhones or iPods. Heck, not even the MacBook Air (which is quite a whimper for broadcast duties). What better strategy than to stay away. Ha!

To answer Don Moore and clajoie: This year too, the LAFCPUG meet is on during NAB. I've been told that Apple will be officially attending this event. It's on 16 April at the MGM Grand Hotel. You can find details here: http://www.lafcpug.org/nab_2008

Interestingly enough, Apple and Avid aren't getting booths at the show, but they will both be there is some capacity. Avid is apparently going to be there meeting w/ people but on a small scale. I guess it goes back to what John was saying, those companies don't want to spend the money to be there, but they can't afford to NOT be there -- not that they'd lose money, but the whole face time and trust/credibility that goes along w/ that face time.