Why is Inc. Magazine Promoting Unethical Behavior?

One of my BFFs, Chris Semon with Snowsports Industries America, recently sent me a link to a December 12, 2012 article in Inc. magazine asking for my response. The article is titled, How to Commandeer a Trade Show: 4 Tips and written by Don Rainey, a General Partner with Grotech Ventures, which invests in early stage technology companies.

The idea that Mr. Rainey and Inc. think this article should be written, let alone published, is pretty amazing. At the very least it shows a clear disregard for all the true stakeholders of a trade show - the owners, exhibitors and attendees. But, in reality, it promotes blatant unethical behavior. Pretty surprising for a national magazine, if you ask me.

Basically, Mr. Rainey gives four tips on how to take full advantage of the benefits a trade show provides its exhibitors without paying for the right. He justifies this "guerrilla marketing strategy" by telling his readers, "You know that participating in the tradeshow is the most effective option, but you can afford neither the high cost of booth space nor the booth needed to fill it.  Nonetheless, it is critical for your young company to join the fray and get in front of potential customers, partners and investors." His solution? "All it takes is creativity and the ability to pull a stunt or two."

...the ability to pull off a stunt or two. Really? Let's think about this a moment.

A trade show is owned by an organization...maybe a trade association...maybe a show management company...maybe a publisher (ironic, no?). That organization invests a huge amount of time, effort, money, and staffers to plan and produce this event. They've reserved the exhibit hall far in advance, contracted with a decorator to handle set up and tear down, committed to large room blocks at local hotels, reserved local bus transportation, maybe hired super expensive spekaers, promoted the event to both potential exhibitors and attendees, prepaid for meals, and whatever else goes into putting on such an event.

Corporations that sign up as exhibitors also invest significant resources in the show. They paid for exhibit space, maybe designed and built a booth, set up travel, prepared products and shipped them to display, pay for staffers to be at the show...in other words, they've contracted for the right to exhibit at the show and invested additional monies, people, and resources to make the most of that investment.

Attendees register to go to the show. They set up travel, hotel, ground transportation. They block time for appointments with current and potential vendors, maybe set appointments, and maybe schedule to attend educational sessions. 

All three of these groups have invested in participating at the event.

But apparently, according to Mr. Rainey AND Inc. magazine, it's okay to "pull a stunt or two," and surreptitiously invade this owned-and-paid-for-by-somebody-else sanctum because you can't afford to be a legitimate player.

Shame on Mr. Rainey for thinking and promoting such unethical behavior. Shame on Inc. magazine for publishing and promoting such unethical behavior. 

If you read the article now, you'll notice a small update at the bottom:

"This article was updated on Dec. 17, to remind readers not to encroach on display that the trade show has rights to."

Really? It reminds us of that? It STILL has the four tips on how to do just that. And Mr. Rainey offered a very weak mea culpa to the infuriated Comments readers sent in:

"In no way do I want to encourage any behavior in the pursuit of raising company awareness that detracts from the official event and companies need to be mindful of what they are doing. I have tremendous respect for industry events and the organizations that produce them and companies should always look into ways to be involved in the main event as a first course of action. I revised the article to better reflect some of the things a young company can do when they just can’t afford to be at the official event in any formal capacity."

Wait. What? He doesn't want to encourage bad behavior, but still suggests there are "...things a young company can do when they just can’t afford to be at the official event in any formal capacity." I'm confused. Which is it?

I don't think it's a stretch to assume Mr. Rainey's early stage technology investments have been given this advice before. I also have no doubt he's still giving them the advice. He just made a mistake publishing it and letting everybody know he condones unethical behavior.

Inc. magazine, on the other hand, should know better than publish such advice. They are in the PUBLISHING business and run many of their own such events. You can take it to the bank they would absolutely do everything they can to block any such "guerrilla tactics" attempted during one of them. But apparently, it's okay for them to suggest small businesses do so at other events.

So, in the same spirit, I have a "guerrilla marketing" tactic for all of you who wish you could afford to advertise in Inc. magazine, but can't afford their rates. Design a flyer for your business on your desktop computer. Go to your local Fedex Office and have a few hundred copies made. Now go around your city and look for all the magazine stands you can find - maybe there's still a Barnes & Noble nearby...or all the big hotels...of course, the airport newstands...wherever Inc. might be sold. 

When nobody's watching, stick one of your flyers in every copy of Inc. magazine. Voila! Free advertising! 

And if anybody asks what you're doing, just show them Rainey's article and say:

"I know that advertising in Inc. is an most effective option for my company, but I can't afford their high cost for ad space nor the fee to needed to design it.  Nonetheless, it is critical for our young company to join the fray and get in front of potential customers, partners and investors."

I'm sure it'll be okay.

Comments

[Kirstin]

Wow, I am gobsmacked!
Steve your advertising idea is great!

[Bill Fetter]

I was intrigued about what these "tips" were going to be. It's appalling that the advice given has to do with a company that should be at a show, but for whatever reason, thinks they can't "afford" it. When you consider the sum total of the said "tips", it's not all that far off of the cost of buying a 10x10 booth space and one of the new generation of tubular pop-ups that can be had for about $1000 if you shop around. If you "need" to be at the show, you need to be there for real, on the show floor and not skulking around handing hats to hotel maids and taxi drivers. What awful advice!

[Vicky]

Now that's just tacky. Shame on him and them.

[Gregg]

Well, I see Mr. Rainey's tactics being used more and more. "Suitcasers" we call them. We try to patrol and run them out of the show, but since the recession there more and more are pouring in. Inc. magazine is legitimizing this behavior. Shame on them.

[Shane Zeppelin]

Brilliant!

[Rich Obertots]

Steve - well said. There's this "Old School" concept called ethics. There is no e. before the THICS - just plain old ethics. Thanks for reminding Inc. and all of us about this concept that seems to mean less and e.Less these days.

[Jeffbourque]

Well, I often think not much surprises me nowadays, but a formalized discussion of hijacking mindshare of an event without exhibiting at it is just downright unethical. However, having dealt with software start up companies (and other companies associated with the web) and venture capitalists, it shouldn't have surprised me. I have found over the years that hi-tech start-ups feel entitled to a lot of things. When I owned my own ad agency, I once had a hi-tech start up client ask me to me to rent a hospitality suite at a hotel connected to the trade show venue. When I commented that I didn't know he was exhibiting at that show, he said he wasn't, but had a distributor at the show and was printing up a stack of invitations for the distributor to pass out. Suffice to say, I passed on the assignment, and later passed on doing any more business with the client.

[Fred]

More of the flash mob mentality I think.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_mob)

Tweet a bunch of your friends to show up at a tradeshow wearing your young company logo and run screaming down the aisles. I hope it doesn't come to this!

Your idea for advertising in Inc. - unintended consequences!

[Mary Chisholm/MicroRidge]

Yes tradeshows are expensive but we were a startup company once and got our start with a tradeshow. We didn't have a fancy booth but we had a "legitimate" presence. Less expensive back in the day but all things are relative. His suggestions are just unethical period, and I'm glad he's gotten called on it. Doesn't negate the fact he put it out there. Just hope the startups begin their journey with a sprinkling of ethics!

[Dan Hooks]

Unbelievable. My wife runs the largest bridal show in NC, and I assure you she invests considerable effort and time to educate the vendors in the show how to deal with such "gypsy" vendors. They constantly try to sneak onto the show floor and engage the brides in the aisles or at the concession stands. They even set up at the front door before our security team has them removed. There is no excuse for this type of behavior certainly not under the guise of "guerilla marketing". This is plain theft and cheating and there is no other way to look at it. We have to enlist a team of 6 security officials to walk the floor looking for such tactics. Poor decision on the part of Inc. magazine in my opinion. I am sure there are better topics to be considered.