Intellectual Property Study
- 1. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Intellectual Property Initiative _____________________________________________________________________________________ A study benchmarking current attitudes and business practices surrounding the rights and use of Intellectual Property in the Event & Exhibit Industry. Alan Cordial of calan communications & John Pavek from Exhibitor Magazine Group Made possible with support from Exhibitor Magazine
- 2. Executive Summary 76% Mission Raise the level of professionalism in our industry, through an examination of the current practices surrounding intellectual property; resulting in the establishment of guidelines and best practices. Methodology Of all respondents ranked Peer review of question prior to release intellectual property abuses as a top 5 issue in our Survey consisted of both shared & skip logic questions industry. 18,000 active industry members were included 574 Completed Surveys ( 5.9% net response ) When asked … Results are +/- 3.9% at a 95% Confidence Level “Would you be likely to use a standardized industry RFI if one existed?” Highlights 74% 69% 31% 79% of buyers would like to see design called out in pricing 26% 40% drop between should and can design be protected Yes No Suppliers appear twice as likely to “cut & paste” a web image Buyers Suppliers 61% of suppliers have been offered a peek at competitors work Seem like a good idea. 33% of buyers admit to inviting suppliers to bid just for ideas 25% of suppliers acknowledge they have used a competitors ideas Sad Thing… The Intellectual Property Initiative is endorsed by: TSEA and EDPA released such a document in 2003. Exhibit & Event Industry RFI Practices to assist the Corporate buyer in preparing and administrating a successful Request For Information initiative.
- 3. The Importance of IP Value the Idea: Determining a difference during the selection process of one supplier over another now resides almost solely with the worth of a suppliers’ intellectual property.” Their Idea or Design” The many changes impacting the competitive landscape of the exhibit and event industry, since the economic fallout of 9/11 have collectively served to elevate the value of an idea or design as a critical aspect of a supplier’ offerings. Unprecedented cross pollination of employees between companies, as 79% companies either unraveled or preyed upon those that were has largely removed the legacy of secretive best practices. Attitudes with respect to utilizing local suppliers, like the Berlin Wall, are all but gone with the emergence of national companies. These companies with multiple locations and more sophisticated marketing techniques are now the Of buyers when asked if they classic think global (nationwide) but support local business models. would prefer for suppliers to Well established tradeshows within our own industry now bring buyers and present the costs associated suppliers more easily into constant contact with one another. with the creative idea clearly identified in their proposals The Internet and a wide array of on‐line technologies facilitate the speed and agreed. ease of doing business such that “partnerships” are no longer a neighborhood 15% only proposition. Once viewed of as a, “stepchild” segment of our industry, the portable modular and OEM solutions have all but flattened historic differences in production 64% quality and capacity among providers. With fresh designs, new levels of quality Strongly Agree and distinct advantages in cost containment and the “Green” race; marketplace Agree alternatives have expanded exponentially. Traditional relationships with the client, once the corner stone of the event and exhibit supplier’s customer access and retention have given way. Today a revolving door of customers who view relationships as a responsive text message, coupled with ever increasing sophisticated procurement practices by the buying corporation make value not relationship top of mind. In short, there is little real difference among suppliers when it comes to their ability to reach a potential customer or deliver a quality product at competitive pricing. It is this within this setting of increasing value for “The Idea”, that we found it important to step back and look at how we view intellectual property as an industry. Where possible gaps may exist between buyer and supplier and what are the best practices we might embrace.
- 4. Demographic Snapshot Insights: Buyers________________________________ Results of our initial questions The demographics for Buyer respondents were found to be consistent with other which were intended to research efforts previously conducted by Exhibitor Magazine Group. provide for demographic analysis based on role in the Manufacturing 46% Sales/Mk… 29% Technology 21% industry, size of company, Event/Ex… 52% 9% Retail/Wholesale Healthcare 9% Exec Mgmt 9% event activity levels provided 5% Communications Marketing/Adv. 3% 5% some interesting insight. 3% Financial Gen Mgmt 3% Gov't … 2% Design 2% Non-profit 1% 1% A Gender Gap: Educ Institution 0% 20% 40% 60% % Industry Segmentation Role within the Company 37% 28% 66% 29% 23% 26% 18% 15% 16% 13% 34% 71% 10% Female Male 8% 4% 4% Buyers Suppliers Buyers Suppliers 1-10 11-25 26-50 51-75 75-100 100+ less than $100,000 $100,001 $200,000 $200,001 $500,001 $1,000,001 More than $500,000 $1,000,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 A Widening Age Gap: 37% Event level Activity Annual Program Spend 30% 30% 26% Buyers 24% Suppliers Suppliers______________________________ 16% 12% A disappointing component of responses from the supplier side was the ability to 7% 10% engage a higher percentage of the design community. 4% 0.04 0 Full Service 52% Owner 42% under 25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-60 Over 60 Other 31% Senior Mgt. 20/25 26/35 36/45 46/55 56/60 61+ 5% 29% Ind Designer 5% AE Port/Mod Dealer 13% Event Prod 4% 3% Designer 6% Observation: A/V Transport 2% AM/PM 3% EACA 0% Other 13% The gender gap has generally 0% 20% 40% 0% 10% 60% 20% 30% 40% 50% been an accepted fact in our % Service Sector Role within the Company industry. However, this new indicator that supplier 28% employee bases are becoming 250+ 21% 13% 1-25 38% older than the buyer 16% 13% 14% 101-250 community poses challenging 12% 8% questions for owners. Trying 26-100 37% to balance the skill sets of <100 100-200 201-300 301-500 501-1000 1000 proven employees with presenting a like reflection and Number of Events Produced Per Year Number of Employees speaking the language of a new buying generation may Despite the 9/11 market rationalization we still appear a cottage industry with 75% prove problematic. of supplier companies having fewer than 100 employees
- 5. Intellectual Property The term “intellectual property” Baseline Agreement_____________________ refers generally to ideas and Any intelligent discussion regarding intellectual property, it is of course critical that creations of the human mind. an agreement on what rises to the definition of intellectual property in the event & Legal protection for ideas has exhibit industry be established. been extended to writings, musical compositions, designs, Respondents were asked to select what they consider to be IP: artwork and photographs, scientific discoveries and “What would you consider to be intellectual property?’ inventions, software, recordings, and commercial trade names and symbols. Patents, copyrights, trademarks and trade secret Other Supplier recognition are the primary means used by owners of intellectual Timelines Buyer property to enforce their legal right to control the use of their Inventory Lists ideas by others. Barbara A. Scheib Business Offerings Cohen & Grigsby, P.C. CAD Files Renderings Design should be protected? 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 58% With the curious exception of Inventory Lists, suppliers understandably rated 77% everything with a slightly higher degree of regard with respect to being Intellectual property over their buyer counterparts. After all it is their stuff, until sold. 42% 23% Yes No Buyers Suppliers Good News____________________________ Design can be protected? There was solid agreement on those things most likely to be identified as intellectual property. Little separation for an appreciation of traditional elements such as a Rendering, the visual component and a Business Offering, perhaps less 19% glamorous but none the less critical component of the idea. This bodes well as more 38% and more corporations seek to consolidate or leverage their event spend. And 81% suppliers are asked to create whole new pricing structures to accommodate these 62% more informed buying expectations. It appears an appreciation for the construct of Yes No the business model finds a footing on an equal plane with the design’s choice of line and color. Buyers Suppliers
- 6. Everyday IP Practices One noticeably different Prior to looking more specifically at how the respondents viewed Intellectual response appeared to a Property within the industry, questions were introduced with respect to how they question that crossed over treat Intellectual Property in the broader public domain. every day and business activities. We all interact daily with the internet and the profound effect it has had on access and use of the billions of pieces of information it contains. Every day engines like Google, Napster, Wikipedia and the millions of individual web sites make our options to “Cut & Paste” only a mouse click away. Buyers and Suppliers share common practices: Both sets of respondents were asked the same series of questions regarding general everyday practices surrounding intellectual property that were not necessarily directly tied to the event industry. An example question that confirmed similarities. Have you ever… Have you ever… “Downloaded an image off “Obtained a commercial software program without paying for it? the Internet ‐ without confirming if it was copyrighted? 3% N/A 8% 5% Don't Recall 3% 18% Never 47% 83% No 83% Seldom 29% 30% 8% Yes Suppliers 6% Buyers 36% Ocassionaly 17% Frequently 14% 4% Suppliers 3% Buyers Always 3% One Possible explanation: Considering the above responses along with several other question’s responses it Suppliers are more likely to appears that whatever our differences may be when we set across the table from make use of a prospective each other; we are very much alike in our general practices. client’s logo or information contained on their company web site in the “cut & paste” creation and packaging of proposals to the buying company itself.
- 7. Speculative Bidding Maximum Exposure When asked… The event & exhibit industry stands virtually alone with a supplier base where when “Do you think placing a © corporations routinely issue requests to provide speculative creative ideas in a symbol on a drawing make competitive environment the response is almost universal. that design copyrighted” It is in the course of responses that a supplier’s intellectual property is most exposed. The survey looked to understand when corporations were most likely to 32% 33% make these requests. Always Often 6% 5% 68% 67% Occasionally Portable Modular Purchases 29% Yes No When asked if they used a speculative bidding Never process when looking to obtain a new Portable 59% Buyers Suppliers Modular property, more the 50% responded they do not. Virtually identical levels of understanding exist with The survey did not account for dollar levels as a segmentation factor. So these regard to the lack of any real numbers need to be viewed with a consideration for how the many “Pop‐up” and protection a copyright symbol banner stand acquisitions that may have affected responses. alone holds. Always Custom Exhibit 19% When asked a similar questions with respect to Never Often 34% 15% the procurement of custom exhibits the response was quite different. Occasionally 29% In these instances, 66% of the time suppliers are likely to find themselves vulnerable; responding to a competitive opportunity where their creative ideas may be exposed. Scary things happen in bidding situations: 63% of corporate buyers think they have the rights to use any ideas presented to them 61% 49% of suppliers say that their sales practice includes reminding a client that ideas shown remain theirs until a contract is formed. 19% of corporate buyers revealed that they had offered one vendor a look at the work of another vendor during the competitive evaluation process. Of suppliers said that customers had offered them a “peek” at their competitors work.
- 8. True Confessions Buyers________________________________ 33% Acknowledge asking suppliers to participate in a competitive response when they knew in advance the supplier would never be awarded the contract. 55% When asked why they would do so: More than a third was knowingly looking to obtain free ideas at the supplier expense. 46% 39% 38% 39% 42% Of Buyers agreed with the idea of signing an NDA prior to viewing a supplier’s response. 10% 10% 45% Required Ideas Debt Backup Watchdog Other Strongly Agree Agree Suppliers______________________________ 24% Acknowledge using the ideas of a peer competitor without compensation When asked why they would do so: One in four simply admitted to doing so for the money. 40% 27% 29% 75% 24% 24% Of the suppliers reported having their IP stolen at some point. Concept Client Everyone $$$$$ Other