ASIS Misrepresents Show Numbers

They should cut membership prices along with booth prices.  To below what they were before they raised them a year or two ago would be great.  A large membership increase would also help their attendance numbers I would think? 

John, thanks for this. I was wondering about the comparision after ASIS.

ISC has, at least by perception, been targeted to integrators and industry pros not end users. Since ISC has added more education and seems to be increasing the effort to shake that perception, I wonder which show is better at attracting the end user. And does that even matter to the exhibitors? After all, for the most part integrators are their customers, right?

Also, let's not forget that at ISC and ASIS, many exhibitors are also potential customers of other exhibitors. At ASIS 2016, Stanley and Securitas (Diebold) had large booths with lots of staff and many of those folks take the first chance they can to visit the manufacturer booths.

So, what number matters most to the exhibitor I suppose depends on what you are pedaling. Certainly, if I need to make a case to spend the money at only one of these shows I want more information not less. If you can only compare the two totals then wouldn't you want the bigger bang for the buck!

From another perspective, which show do I choose to attend? I used to prefer ISC even as an end user because I wanted to get more technical with the products and found it easier to get more face time with knowledgeable people. At the last ISC I found that most of the booths were staffed with sales and marketing people and less product folks. ISC's heavy attendance makes it hard to compete for the attention of someone to answer questions. I actually got more product knowledge from ASIS than ISC in 2016 which is a first. Maybe it was just bad luck.

"The registration number highlighted in the 2017 prospectus is misleading and significantly inflates how many actually attended. For example, in 2015, the registration number was ~17% higher than the attendance number (~21k vs ~17.5k). Using that same percentage for 2016, actual 2016 attendance was likely in the 18,400 range, nearly 4,000 below the headline number."

If the same percentage held true, then why would they not just report both as they have done previously?

Answer:  the same percentage did not hold true and that's why they don't want to report it... so actual attendance was likely significantly lower than 18.4K

The actual site location of the shows, makes the biggest difference overall - pick a location that is lame, you get lame attendance....

Anaheim for example...... lame location = lame attendance

San Diego..... Nice location = improved attendance

No one manufacturer is going to pull in the attendance for the show, when the location is lame......No manufacture is that good, sorry to say...

ASIS continues to misrepresent its numbers in a new webinar:

This one screencapped below is the worst misrepresentation so far and a clear lie, they are claiming "22,000" "buyers". As explained above, nearly 40% of attendees are exhibitors who, by definition, are sellers, not buyers.