About three years ago, we decided to stop exhibiting at a particular trade show, in the health care field. Attendance had dropped off, exhibit hours were cut back, and the attendees didn't seem to have much buying power anymore. These failings were well known to all the exhibitors, and were discussed at length during the many quiet times at the booth. Despite these very obvious negative signs, ours was the only company that stopped exhibiting. Understand that I am not condemning all trade shows. I'm only talking about this one.

Just last week, I was reading one of the trade journals, that was reporting on 1997's edition of the same show. It stated that 200, yes, 200 people were registered for this national meeting. When we did exhibit at this show in "better times," we got maybe 20 leads--and to use the term "lead" is stretching things a bit. With falling attendance, assume that in 1997 we would have secured 15 leads, and that exhibiting would have cost us $12,000--all told.

At $800 per lead, can it be worth it? We didn't think so, either.

The point is that 1997's show boasted 50 exhibitors, many of whom were big names. OK. We were very stupid for exhibiting at this meeting as long as we did, since it was never that great. But, what does that say about the 50 companies still there?

Why, in the face of all the facts, do marketeers persist in keeping ties to the old ways?

One answer, of course, is sloth. It's easy enough to plan a year, by simply considering which ads to run and which shows to be in, and then just sleepwalking through it all. If sales continue at their present level, or even increase slightly, so much the better. If they don't, well, we "did all we could."

Another classic is "We'll be conspicuous by our absence." In light of 200 attendees, one might ask, conspicuous to whom?

Finally, there is the familiar "We're doing it to show our support for the association." OK. But why? If the association had done anything for you in the past, it sure isn't doing much now!

I think it really comes down to lack of imagination. Why be an innovator? It doesn't seem to pay these days. We all know how successful Bill Gates is, though none of his products were original. His secret was to be lucky, make good decisions, and ram products down the throat of the market.

How about movies? Can anyone think of an original screenplay idea that's come out in the last five years? Can anyone name a major release that made it back on box office alone in the past five years? But, I digress.

Perhaps one explanation for our current economic malaise (never mind what Clinton says) is the lack of old fashioned American ingenuity. With so many me-too products and copycat marketing philosophies out there, it's a wonder that we've been able to hang on for as long as we have.

There had better be some new ideas coming--and fast--or else it's going to be heavy weather ahead for the foreseeable future.