If Apple want's expo in New York THEY should pay IDG's expences for keeping it there. Becasue IDG produces the expo and pays for it, they decide where it's going to be.
Regarding the Media. I agree with Fran. You can't well say that SF is a "Media Capital" yet somehow every January i fine newspaper, and magazine articals all about expo there. How is this at all any different? On top of that, this is the opening event at this new convention center. That's news by itself. The Big Dig will be done (hopefully) and Boston as a will also be looking for all the nation attention they can get. Pile on top of that the biggest Tech trade show on the east coast and you got yourself one hell of a newsmaker. Once the media turns their heads 180 degress, it will not be a problem at all getting media attention for this or any other year. And if you don't know, this is why Television is organized in "Networks". See instead of sending someone from New York to boston to cover the story, they send a reporter from the local affiliate. They make the report and send it back to any HQ. Any other affiliate that wants to air this report can. This is how you can get news from all over the country. So what's the big deal? Why don't they move the SF expo to LA? There is far more media in LA then SF.
Apple is plain foolish if they don't take part. I still do not see how no advertising is better then more advertising.
Fran, I agree that a big part of this is Apple not wanting to take the fall for moving out of NYC.
A lot of your post is about how totally great Boston is, which I agree with, but I still maintain that it's an audience and a group that Apple already has a strong hold on, and it is mainstream big print media that reaches a national audience that Apple wants.
[quote]"I spoke to Apple as late as 9 p.m. last night, and they said nothing to me about what they did today," Greco said. "Nothing." Greco said that he speaks regularly to Apple, and that the two firms have been working on plans for two more Macworld shows, in Britain and Germany. Greco speculated that Apple may not want to have two major US shows each year, because the company doesn't have enough new products in its development pipeline to justify the large, expensive keynote events held at each show. <hr></blockquote>
The fun continues....Greco (home town is Boston)is going to play hardball has made the comment that IDG may ban Apple from Macworld SF <img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[Surprised]" /> . According to reports both side will talk next week. The sega continues.
Fran has convinced me... combined with the latest developments it seems more and more like Apple is the one who dropped the ball here. I think all the the 3rd party vendors would gladly welcome the cheaper venues at boston as well.
That is an interesting article...and compatible with my theories. Hmmmmm.
[quote] it seems more and more like Apple is the one who dropped the ball here. <hr></blockquote>
I don't think you mean, "dropped the ball." That usually implies the making of a negligent mistake, whereas this was a very direct and intentional move.
If I were IDG, I'd ban them from MWSF...that was a wise thing for him to say.
From all that Boston guaranteed IDG, I would think that the exhibitor savings would be greater that 35% (yes? no?). I have nothing against IDG making a profit, but if everything is cheaper in moving to Boston (and wouldn't it be at least 10-15% cheaper by just making the move with no perks?), IDG is making out like a bandit.
Comments
Regarding the Media. I agree with Fran. You can't well say that SF is a "Media Capital" yet somehow every January i fine newspaper, and magazine articals all about expo there. How is this at all any different? On top of that, this is the opening event at this new convention center. That's news by itself. The Big Dig will be done (hopefully) and Boston as a will also be looking for all the nation attention they can get. Pile on top of that the biggest Tech trade show on the east coast and you got yourself one hell of a newsmaker. Once the media turns their heads 180 degress, it will not be a problem at all getting media attention for this or any other year. And if you don't know, this is why Television is organized in "Networks". See instead of sending someone from New York to boston to cover the story, they send a reporter from the local affiliate. They make the report and send it back to any HQ. Any other affiliate that wants to air this report can. This is how you can get news from all over the country. So what's the big deal? Why don't they move the SF expo to LA? There is far more media in LA then SF.
Apple is plain foolish if they don't take part. I still do not see how no advertising is better then more advertising.
Actually, that's not true. SF is much better for what Apple does.
A lot of your post is about how totally great Boston is, which I agree with, but I still maintain that it's an audience and a group that Apple already has a strong hold on, and it is mainstream big print media that reaches a national audience that Apple wants.
Note that these two things are not exclusive.
[quote]"I spoke to Apple as late as 9 p.m. last night, and they said nothing to me about what they did today," Greco said. "Nothing." Greco said that he speaks regularly to Apple, and that the two firms have been working on plans for two more Macworld shows, in Britain and Germany. Greco speculated that Apple may not want to have two major US shows each year, because the company doesn't have enough new products in its development pipeline to justify the large, expensive keynote events held at each show. <hr></blockquote>
Strange stuff. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
<a href="http://www.businesstoday.com/business/business/mac10182002.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.businesstoday.com/business/business/mac10182002.htm</a>;
[quote]And he blasted the West Coast computer maker for declaring its surprise decision on a day set aside to celebrate Macworld's return to the Hub.
``I told them it was unconscionable they would make the announcement at that time. All I got back from them was that they `heard me,' '' Greco said.
Greco said both sides have agreed to a three-day ``cooling-off'' period before discussing the issue again on Monday.<hr></blockquote>
[ 10-18-2002: Message edited by: scottiB ]</p>
[ 10-18-2002: Message edited by: scottiB ]</p>
<a href="http://www.thinksecret.com/news/macworldboston.html"; target="_blank">http://www.thinksecret.com/news/macworldboston.html</a>;
[quote] it seems more and more like Apple is the one who dropped the ball here. <hr></blockquote>
I don't think you mean, "dropped the ball." That usually implies the making of a negligent mistake, whereas this was a very direct and intentional move.
If I were IDG, I'd ban them from MWSF...that was a wise thing for him to say.
Drama!
[quote]Greco said both sides have agreed to a three-day ``cooling-off'' period before discussing the issue again on Monday.<hr></blockquote>
My eye. Apple's very cool about this already--some would say cool and calculated.
Q:
According to <a href="http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/290/business/It_s_official_Macworld_will_return_in_2004+.shtml"; target="_blank">this</a> Boston Globe article, IDG will have Boston's convention center rent free for the first two years.<a href="http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0210/17.boston.php"; target="_blank">This</a> MacCentral article states other concessions/perks Boston offered like exhibitor discounts on lodging, phone and data lines, and transportation. The MacCentral article says the exhibitors' costs "will be reduced by as much as 35 percent when they move to Boston."
From all that Boston guaranteed IDG, I would think that the exhibitor savings would be greater that 35% (yes? no?). I have nothing against IDG making a profit, but if everything is cheaper in moving to Boston (and wouldn't it be at least 10-15% cheaper by just making the move with no perks?), IDG is making out like a bandit.
[ 10-18-2002: Message edited by: scottiB ]</p>