Conventional Wisdom
Jerry W. Saveriano
This article for POB Magazine, October 1997 issue was a follow-up the the ACSM article which is also included on this Web site. In this essay I question the justification of the Fall Show when the main Spring Show needs to be strenghtened.
This article is abridge from the magazine piece because it contain a good deal of my original ACSM article.
Reader comments to these essays are found at the end of this section. Join in let me know what you think needs to be done to save the ACSM Shows.
Is The GIS/LIS Show Really Needed?
In a few weeks the 1997 GIS/LIS Annual Conference and Exposition will be held in Cincinnati, Ohio. This show serves as the Fall counterpoint show to the Spring ACSM-ASPRS Annual Show. The April 1997 Spring Show was held in Seattle, Washington. The Spring Show is considered the main event for surveying and mapping professionals and industry suppliers.
National Conventions and Exhibitions play a critical role for the industries they serve. These "Shows" are a place to learn about the latest science and technology in the field, see how new products are applied and get together with fellow professionals from around the country. In a rapidly changing world of advancing technology - surveying, mapping and GPS/GIS professionals need a strong and vibrant show to help them keep up and get ahead.
The newly coalescing Geomatics Industry deserves a show that serves the industry and its members well. Those in the field must take an active role in shaping the industry, their associations and the shows if progress is to be made in the transition from the grand tradition of the past to the new exciting profession of the future.
Over the past few years there has been a growing concern about the vitality of the Spring ACSM-ASPRS Show. After the April Show I wrote a lengthy review of the conference and exhibition, pointing out what some of the problems were and what was being done to solve the problems. My review was posted on my Web site and engender a number of comments and a bit of controversy within the industry.
Most of the discussion has taken place behind the scenes between the professional societies’ and the industry associations’ leadership. There has been some progress made in the form of meetings and general agreement on recognition that changes are needed to be made to assure the longevity of the important Annual Spring Show.
One such positive step has been at the urging of the Opto-Precision Instruments Association (OPIA) Surveying Systems Group the ACSM management has agreed to work with the OPIA on improving the marketing and promotional activities for the Show. Mr. William C. Strackbein, Executive Director of the OPIA said. "The ACSM has expressed a willingness to work with the OPIA. We have agreed to set-up a Task Force within the OPIA to work with the ACSM Conference Committee on improving the long term viability of the Show."
The ACSM has also made efforts to work more closely with the state and regional membership organizations to reduce conference redundancies and meeting conflicts. Hopefully these and other program improvements will progress beyond the talking stage and will indeed help to raise the level of value the Show provides to those who attend and exhibit.
It appears however there will be little change seen at the upcoming Fall GIS/LIS Show 1997. There seems to be little excitement within the industry for this Show and so far the promotion has seemed lackluster. Other than a few black and white magazine ads there has been virtually no proactive promotions of the Fall Show.
When I specifically requested press and related information on the upcoming Show I was directed to go to the ACSM Web site at www.landsurveyor.com/acsm to see what was there. It also follows about a month after the Institute of Navigation (ION) ION GPS ‘97 Show in Kansas City. This is an extremely strong and vibrant GPS Show and will be a tough act for the GIS/LIS Show to follow.
The question needs to be asked whether the industry can support two shows per year or would it be better to focus on one show of excellence each year. What follows is an abbreviated summary of an exhaustive review I wrote of the Spring ASCM-ASPRS Show which lamented the break-up of the Show’s sponsors and expressed concern about the future viability of the Show. See if you agree with my concerns and comments. If you are also worried about the direction the Show is taking get involved at the local, regional or national level and help improve the quality and value of this show.
After Show Report - 11/24/97
I talked with a number of exhibitors, editiors and other attendees to the GIS/LIS Show. Most were very disappointed by the turn-out around 1,400 people. Exhibitors, the OPIA and others were further discouraged by the lack of progress in improving cooperation between the exhibitors and the Show's management.
Comments from Readers
Here are comments from some of those who responded to these articles.
From the ACSM
Jerry,
Thanks for sharing your article with Bob and me. You have
done a very thorough job. Two items which you might wish
to include is the fact that the recession changed the
entire business arena in 92 and 93 and we will never
return to the good old days. Also we sponsored three
conferences in 92 when the ISPRS conference took
place...so it is a natural conclusion that our regular
conference was smaller. Gus and Bill have volunteered to
organize and support a marketing program through OPIA so
I think we have some great opportunities to succeed.
Thanks again.
John Lisack, Jr.
Executive Director, ASCM
-----------------------------------
From
the ASPRS
Jerry:
I got your comments. I have sent to the ASPRS Executive
Committee. In reading your remarks, they are directed
primarily at the Surveying community. I know nothing
about OPIA. ASPRS/ACSM has a joint Sustaining members
Council ans they havent said much about what you are
saying. If OPIA is concerned about the show , why havent
they said anything to me.
Your numbers are a bit off, but in the ballpark. The real
problem for ASPRS is that the percentage of ASPRS members
attending the Annual meeting has gone from 20% in 1989 to
6-7% in 1996. I havent seen the final registration
reports for Seatle yet.
Your comments about GIS/LIS are wrong.I am not sure what
you want in the way of comments from ASPRS about the
decision to hold our own conference that we didnt say
last year. I am asking the ASPRS Officers and EXCOM to
let me know if they have any comments about your
statement.
Bill French
Executive Director, ASPRS
billf@asprs.org "Now who will stand on either hand,
And keep the bridge with me?"
-- Macaulay "Lays of Ancient Rome (1842)"
-------------------------------------------
From Ed
Miller, Founder of POB Magazine
and
long time Industry observer.
I have been attending ACSM/ASPRS meetings since 1960. At
that time, ASP and ACSM held their Spring meetings the
same week; one organization meeting at the beginning of
the week and the other at the end of the week, with a
joint exhibition hall open on Tuesday, Wednesday, and
Thursday. I don't recall when they began to meet
concurrently. If I remember correctly, the Fall meetings
of the organizations were held separately in 1960 and
because both meetings were financial disasters, the two
organizations decided to hold Fall joint meetings.
There were advantages to both organizations to do this.
Those exhibitors that sold equipment to both surveyors
and photogrammetrists benefitted. The associations could
negotiate from greater strength with hotels. And there
were people who wanted to attend both meetings. Remember,
this was before the PC was developed and I doubt there
were many "remote sensors" around. Admittedly,
the advent of the computer in the mapping fields changed
the complexion of the exhibit hall; however, there are
still a goodly number of exhibitors that manufacture
products for both surveying and photogrammetry.
I believe that part of the present problem is the growing
influence of remote sensors within ASPRS. Many of these
members are academics and a large percentage of those
from industry hold PhDs. While the surveying community is
increasing its percentage of members holding college
degrees, there is a definite education gap between the
two associations and this may be playing a part in
ASPRS's decison to go its separate way.
You note that many of the ACSM papers have a mostly
theoretical/academic orientation. You are correct and
this has been a major complaint of the surveyor for a
long time; just as he complains of theoretical/academic
material appearing in "Surveying and Land
Information Systems." The surveyor doesn't
understand that publishing that kind of journal is a
responsibility of a profession"; just as having a
forum for academics in the field to present papers is
also the responsibility of a "profession." When
you couple this with the fact that it is very difficult
to get "grass roots" surveyors to present
papers, coming up with a better balance between academic
and practical is very difficult.
Certainly, having more hands-on, application-oriented
technical sessions is a desirable goal; the question is
how to increase their numbers. One suggestion would be to
1) offer CEUs for attendance at the meeting; 2) offer
additional CEUs for attendance at technical sessions; and
2) provide speakers with CEUs for conducting the
sessions. Not that this will be easy to sell to the
various state boards of registration that require CEUs
for continued registration. In additon, there would be a
monitoring problem. But it would give a greater number of
surveyors the incentive to come to the meeting.
You indicated that there were many cancellations of
presentations. It would be interesting to determine what
percentage of those cancelling had their papers published
in the Proceedings. While I think it would increase the
cost of getting the Proceedings into the hands of
attendees if it were to be mailed at a later date (in
order to publish papers that were actually presented),
the reduced size of the Proceedings may compensate for
the cost of postage. At the very least, refusing to
accept future papers from individuals who don't show up,
might reduce the number of no-shows in the future.
Another thing that has worked against surveyors attending
the Spring meeting is that it is held too late in the
year. The meeting used to be held in late February or
early March when many surveyors were not too busy. It was
moved to a later date because there was so little time
between the GIS/LIS meeting and the Spring meeting.
Combined with the change of dates for the meeting is the
decision to combine the Fall meeting with GIS/LIS and
move the Spring meeting around the country. While the
decision to move the Spring meeting around probably
caused some reduction in attendance since it was moved
away from the Eastern centers of population, I believe
the choice of locations was a bigger factor in reducing
attendance, i.e, Albuquerque, Reno, Charlotte. I feel
meetings should be held in hub cities like Denver, and
St. Louis that are easier, and probably less expensive,
to fly into from various parts of the country and that
offer hotel accomodations in a variety of price ranges.
Ed Miller
Ed Miller Associates Inc.
-------------------------
From
the ACSM Bulletin Staff
Dear Jerry,
I have just read your very insightful article reviewing
the ACSM show in Seattle, and discussing the
ramifications of the break-up of the co-sponsorship. We
are most disturbed by ASPRS' decision to sever their
agreement. It is a shame that the OPIA and other groups
didn't convey their disdain prior to the announcement,
but maybe some good will come of it yet.
I heard more than a year ago, that the OPIA group was
working on something BIG with regard to the ACSM/ASPRS
joint convention. I believe their influence can really
turn things around if things are totally cemented by now.
I have been suggesting for years that the marketing
efforts, both in show promotion and membership promotion
be accelerated. The only marketing effort I have
witnessed are the trade show ads that Professional
Surveyor, POB and other pubs give us in swap for a booth
at the show. These are very generic and do not promote
the positive thingsthat need to be conveyed to the
surveyors and cartographers out there.
The show group also sends a preliminary program to a
group of former attendees and the members of both
societies. Again, this needs to have a cover sheet
embellishing the high points of the convention.
Personally, I would like to thank you for writing the
article, and I really hope it will set some people
thinking about what can be done to again solidify the
efforts of the convention. As you know, I am the
advertising/marketing manager for the ACSM publications.
As such I deal in direct mail, telemarketing, and have
promotions for each issue put on our web site. Like you,
I know that marketing the benefits really makes a
difference.
Again, I enjoyed your article and wanted to let you know.
Cordially,
Barbara
Barbara Woodward, Advertising/Marketing Manager
American Congress on Surveying and Mapping
5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 100
Bethesda, Maryland 20814 USA
Phone: (301) 493-0200 FAX: (301) 493-8245
-----------------------------
More
from ACSM
Bill French has also got back to me with mixed responses
to the article, his principle comment to the
"why" was, "The real problem for ASPRS is
that the percentage of ASPRS members attending the Annual
meeting has gone from 20% in 1989 to 6-7% in 1996."
Which is a reasonable cause for concern. It may say
something about their efforts to market the show to their
own members.
I felt that most of your complaints were with ASPRS and
the way they handled--or mishandled--the split. I can
assure you that if the shoe had been on the other foot,
we would have treated ASPRS in a much more professional
way.
I for one have tried to do my part to drive home the
importance of the 1998 convention to the future of ACSM
conventions, and I seem to be meeting with some success.
Before coming to ACSM, which is a professional membership
society, I worked for a number of trade associations, and
believe me, trade associations take their
conventions--and their exhibitors--very seriously.
Robert E. Simanski, Communications Director
American Congress on Surveying and Mapping
From a POB Reader
Subject: Your Article on the State of the ASPRS/ACSM Conventions in 10/97
POB
Date: Monday, October 20, 1997 8:36 AM
Jerry Saveriano:
I agree with your commentary and recommendations - should be one combined show in the early spring. This would serve everybody better by bringing mapping, surveying, GIS, and related technologies together and limiting the time and expense required to present, discuss, and review these technologies. Let me know to whom I can write to encourage this course.>
John Antalovich, Jr., PE, President
Kucera International Inc.