The CES Paradox
Damned if you do.
Damned if you don't.
I was reading an editorial blog on engadget.com about the surge of crowd-funded start-ups at CES and their impact on the CES trade show as a vehicle to promote these newly formed companies.
What caught my eye in this blog post was not as much the editorial itself, but more one of the first comments by one of Engadget's readers:
“jonthan.perry
So with all of their backers money, these guys are treating themselves to a week in Vegas (flights, hotels, meals, transportation), paying for booth space (along with tables, signs, props, ect...) instead of focusing on finalizing the product and getting it into backers hands? CES seems a bit overrated to me, just if you are going to announce or launch a product, why would you a) wait until CES to demo, or b) show off an incomplete product. ...”
I have a feeling more than one reader had the same thought when reading this Engadget blog. For the start-ups that are contemplating the idea of spending significant amounts of money and time to prepare a booth and go to Las-Vegas to attend CES, the decision must be based on both priorities and perception.
If the start-ups product satisfies an existing need - IE building a better mouse trap - I suspect it will be easier for the casual observer to see the value in such promotional costs because the intended purpose of the product is better understood and it's user base is already established.
However, if the product is intended to satisfy a need that is yet to exist, the start-up has to first properly define and promote the need before promoting the product . Spending a big chunk of your crowd funding money on casino hotel rooms and plane tickets to Las-Vegas, will likely be perceived as an extravagance for a product that is still technically considered vapor-ware.
On the other hand, the product with an established need will have to be refined and properly tested before ever being promoted along-side competing products at a venue Such as CES.
The inventor of a product that has to create a need in the minds – and wallets - of potential buyers, may still find value in a visit to CES but they will have to do things in reverse. Instead of setting up a booth at CES to attract the media, they should instead attend CES as a visitor and bring their product to specific media personnel on a one to one basis. The media people chosen for these presentations will be the ones that will best promote the need and not necessarily the product that has yet to be brought to market.
Crowd-funding websites such as Kickstarter and Indiegogo monetize their service by retaining a percentage of all revenue awarded to projects posted on their site in addition to passing on all shopping-cart fees to the owner of the posted project.
I see this as a fair exchange, as the most popular crowd-funding sites have done a good job of promoting their service and by consequence the innovative projects they host.
It is precisely this promotional vehicle that may be the solution to the paradox faced by some of the crowd-funded innovators contemplating an investment in a CES booth to further promote their newly designed products.
Such crowd-funding sites setting up their own CES booths, and inviting each their ten most-monetized projects of the past year to present their wares in a standard and unified fashion, will not only give content to the crowd-funding site's booth but should help reduce the costs of attending CES for the project owners contemplating their own independent booth space.
By having the crowd-funding website pay for the booth and its design and having each of the ten project owners pay for their own transportation and lodging, this would be a win-win situation for both the website and the project owners in terms of promotion and public relations.
They could also leverage the good will they have established with all successful project owners such as designers and artists to bring chosen, products, services and animation to the booth and the attendees.