When I started this blog it was dedicated to following the movements of journalists from one publication to another in the electronics world. That was over a decade ago. Now I cover a lot more than that but I think it is fascinating that the movement of journalists is noteworthy not because they are moving to a new publication, not that they are moving to an corporate job, but that they are now moving from one corporation to another.

At the 52nd DAC (where exhibitors appear to be down 15 percent from last year) the news of the acquisition of Atrenta by Synopsys was eclipsed by word that Brian Fuller, editor in chief at Cadence Design was moving to take over content strategy at ARM ltd, and Richard Goering, dean of EDA journalism, was officially retiring.

On the show floor was all kinds of rumors about who will fill the gaps at Cadence, which has become something of a model for content strategy under Fuller's direction. Early favorites appear to be John Blyler, recently "liberated" from Extension Media and Dylan McGrath, currently blocking the newsroom exit at EE Times (Yes, I'm being snarky. Tepid apologies).

ARM's decision to hire Fuller is momentous as it may herald an era that they will actually invest in staffing rather than just technology, but it will be an uphill climb, and more than it was at Cadence where some of the trailblazing had been done by Goering and then by the late Anna del Rosario who brought a real vision for modern communications strategy to the company. The foundation she and Fuller laid will serve whoever comes in well.

ARM has a greater depth of subject matter to draw from than Cadence, however, which draws 90 percent of it's revenue from tools (OK, maybe less, but still a lot). So that depth may help Fuller breakthrough the bureaucratic logjam there. It's definitely a challenge that Fuller can take at least two out of three falls.

Trade shows, especially trade shows in the technology world, have been the bane of my existence for a couple of decades. I hate them and think they are a terrible waste of money. That doesn’t mean I think they are useless, but how companies use them makes them so. I almost think there should be a minimum entrance requirement.
In the past couple of years there have been some changes that give me hope.

One is the introduction of social media into the effort and the other is specific focus. UBM seems to have discovered that secret.
UBM’s Design West conference in 2012 served as an umbrella for seven different conferences, ranging from Android development to sensors. Attendees could focus directly on their interest, rather than wander about over several days trying to figure out what to do. The recently concluded ARM TechCon, run by UBM and heavily sponsored by ARM, broke up the three day conference and expo between semiconductor design and software/systems design bringing in completely different audiences. This allowed exhibitors the opportunity to target resources to the right audience. Both of these models are steps in the right direction, because it forces companies to prepare properly, but I think we need to go even further and step right into the workplaces of the customers.

I started this line of thinking when I saw this video of a doctor talking about the need of continuing education for medical professionals and how that can be accomplished best by going into where the professional work.

The beauty of this approach is It takes less time and the content becomes highly focused.Ten years ago this idea was unheard of simply because of the sheer logistics of sending out personnel to multiple locations to present papers and demonstrations.

Five years ago it was impossible to do the same thing virtually over the internet. But combining the two now makes the potential of the virtual trade show a real possibility and at a fraction of the cost of current trade show budgets.

For example, the average exhibit space at a low end trade show, like the Design Automation Conference, is around $7000 for 200 sf. Now you have to add to that the cost of the booth exhibit ($10K), signage ($2K), drayage, monitors, presentation development, public relations, catering, electrical, etc. and you are easily out $30K for a low-cost exhibit effort. For two to three days you hope to meet with 100 (but would settle for 10 truly qualified) leads that have been attracted by the single, 10-minute, generic, committee-designed presentation. Of course, you won’t get that many leads because companies that spend 10 times the amount you spend will grab all the attention.
But for the cost of the exhibit space alone you could create 30 minutes of interactive video presented online (as in the above example), gather qualifying data from the engagement and then be able to afford to send personnel directly to individual companies for face-to-face meetings.

Does this mean trade shows are completely useless? No, not at all. Imagine what your trade show effort would be like if you knew exactly what your potential leads were looking for. Imagine setting up your booth for the purpose of closing deals, rather than having a booth-babe spout an informercial script. Imagine a 10x10 booth where potential customers came with questions at the ready, rather than have to drag it out of them at the end of the presentation. Imagine a trade show that wasn’t a complete waste of time.

That’s all that’s lacking from industry wide meetings: a little imagination.

State of CORPORATE media

Trade show approaches need some imagination