backtop


Print 167 comment(s) - last by Canadian87.. on Jan 15 at 1:41 PM


Today DailyTech went to meet with a hardware vendor only to find them being kicked out by security. Reportedly as many as 30 small electronics companies were kicked out of suites they had paid for. Apparently the CEA came down hard against exhibiting and holding meeting in suites, even though our contact said the hotel had assured them, when reserving the room, that this was permissable.  (Source: Wikimedia Commons)
Money is tight, but one has to wonder whether the aggressive tactics at the 2010 CES really help anyone

The International Consumer Electronics Show, first held in 1967 has grown into the world's premier event for showcasing technology innovation of all kinds.  Since 1978 the show has been held during the winter in Las Vegas.  It is now thoroughly entrenched in the city's economy bringing vital business and prestige to the city.  And for consumers it provides them with unparalleled information to form their buying decisions for the next year.

The 2010 Consumer Electronics Show has been mostly a great experience so far.  From solid state drives to in-car infotainment, there's been a wealth of information on exciting incoming products.  However, buried in that technological beauty, a bit of the ugly side of the business reared its head today.

In 2009, CES was much smaller than it was this year.  Hit by the recession many vendors simply chose not to go to the show or dramatically scale back their presentation.  Those who did stay, but were battling cost-cuts learned to adopt cost-saving tactics such as holding business meetings in the suites they rented at local Las Vegas hotels and showing off their product lineup.  Some of these vendors had displays on the CES floor, others did not, but all had one thing in common -- those who stuck it out and stayed were supporting the local economy (via hotel bookings, food and drink orders, etc.) and they were sharing information on exciting products with consumers.

This year many returned to the show, but they returned a bit wiser -- or so they thought.  They deployed similar techniques (in suite meetings and product displays, etc.).  That's where the trouble started.

The CES management became quite irate over vendors independently showing at hotels.  You see, while casinos traditionally do decreased gambling business during the week of CES (this was readily apparent this year), they are reimbursed both by additional patronage of both the nightlife and food, but also directly by the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA).  The traditional food chain continued with the CEA, which in turn received this revenue from sponsors and businesses who wanted to display products or hold meetings at the show.

However, facing some smaller parties avoiding paying exhibition fees and exhibiting in their rooms, the CES began cracking down today.  They requested that hotel security kick out any vendors holding meetings or exhibiting in their rooms.  DailyTech was surprised to hear of this, beginning at a lunch meeting.  A vendor, to remain anonymous, claimed that they were coerced into paying an additional $10,000 exhibition fee to the CEA, despite having fully paid for their suite.  The alternative was to be kicked out of their suite and be unable to exhibit or meet with clients.

The surprises were to continue when we met with another vendor.  As we came into their suite at our scheduled meeting time, we found them to be packing.  They were being kicked out for exhibiting.  And packing up was not enough to satisfy the CES staff and hotel security -- they were not allowed to hold business meetings in their suite either.  Not long after we left, one of their employees contacted DailyTech.  They had been kicked out of the room they had paid for in full.

More importantly, the vendor's chief representative reports that they had contacted the hotel management before the show and asked if there were any limitations on showing product in the suites.  The hotel management at The Venetian reportedly said there were not. 

States our source, "I asked the hotel staff if there were any limitations for using the suite.  They said the only limitations were how many people were at our parties.  They didn't say there were any limitations on displaying product.  We set up our product on the first day.  Then on Wednesday a cleaning person came in and reported what they saw to management.  From there we got kicked out on Thursday. The system is not okay.  We did everything they asked us to do, though.  We can not show any product, we can not hold business meetings, though.  The main problem is they didn't let us know about this in advance. "

The source said they would be coming back to CES next year, but that they were disturbed by the dishonest behavior of the hotel management and CES staff.

A security guard at The Venetian confirmed these reports further, saying he had been involved with "solving" a "lot of problems" at CES.  When we inquired what these "problems" were, he stated, "The problems aren't with CES itself, but with people who didn't go through the proper channels to display the products and hold their business meetings."

Thus far the reports of the incident have been confined to The Venetian and The Palazzo, but similar incidents may have occurred elsewhere.  According to our sources as many as 30 small electronics companies may have been kicked out of The Venetian and The Palazzo on Thursday.

There's absolutely no argument -- CES is a wonderful opportunity for all parties involved.  But the hotels must ask themselves -- amid vacancies and business slowed by recession, is kicking out paying customers the right answer?  The party kicked out had already paid the hotel a great deal, not only for the suite, but for food and drinks at an event the night before.

And for CES, one must wonder whether this is the kind of harsh image the show wants to project.  After all, if small companies can't afford to have a booth on the main floor, they obviously won't get the same high profile coverage that a major floor vendor like, say, Intel gets.  However, by being on site, it would seem they are helping the show, by adding to its allure, giving larger vendors more of a reason to attend (to carry out business with smaller suppliers), and helping customers learn about new products.

If the vendors can't pay, they can't pay.  One smaller company was already kicked out we witnessed today, likely more have been or will be as well.  Is this really good for CES, an industry flagbearer?  And is it really good for the Las Vegas economy, so dependent on the show?  And even if it is, why wasn't the CEA and hotel management more clear about restrictions on exhibits and meetings in Las Vegas hotels this week?  Those are intriguing questions that must be asked.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Sue the bastards
By wardww on 1/9/2010 7:32:54 AM , Rating: 4
I would strongly advise those small companies who were kicked out to engage lawyers and sue the hotels' sorry asses.




RE: Sue the bastards
By Dutcher1 on 1/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: Sue the bastards
By SlyNine on 1/9/2010 5:49:08 PM , Rating: 5
Fine then, I hope these smaller companies come together and host their own event at a different hotel, and they can do it without the limitations.

Then CES can't say crap.


RE: Sue the bastards
By Dutcher1 on 1/10/2010 4:30:12 AM , Rating: 2
Not a bad idea, but how would you get 100K buyers (or even a fraction of that) to attend a show full of smaller and lesser-known vendors? That's the trick. The big anchors drive the traffic.


RE: Sue the bastards
By MadMan007 on 1/10/2010 11:59:13 AM , Rating: 5
You do it at a different hotel as close as possible in the same city at the same time.


RE: Sue the bastards
By Oregonian2 on 1/10/10, Rating: -1
RE: Sue the bastards
By vol7ron on 1/10/2010 4:37:49 PM , Rating: 5
It is no more pirating than other businesses gaining more customers due to the event. That is, the event brings in customers - true - but are those fast food eateries considered pirates because they benefit from the event?

If they were really doing something illegal, they would replace CES signs with signs to their room #. Another illegal action be lobbying in front of the event, discouraging customers from going in; something to the tune of "don't go to the CES because of such-and-such... go to room <room #> instead."

Benefiting from someone else's marketing is a part of a capitalistic society. They did not force people to go to their room, nor did they try and discourage people from going to the event. They did not pirate.


RE: Sue the bastards
By Dutcher1 on 1/10/10, Rating: -1
RE: Sue the bastards
By Oregonian2 on 1/10/10, Rating: -1
RE: Sue the bastards
By afkrotch on 1/10/2010 11:20:41 PM , Rating: 5
So, as long as they aren't in the hotel, they're good?

Like all these small companies banded together, rented a building across the street, exhibited their wares, they'd be good to go?

Unless CES rented the whole hotel and every single room for their event, I don't see a problem with them having an exhibit in their room. It wasn't against the rules, according to their hotel staff. My guess, the hotel doesn't want to lose the CES, so they got on their knees and satisfied the CES staff.


RE: Sue the bastards
By Oregonian2 on 1/12/2010 6:09:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It wasn't against the rules, according to their hotel staff. My guess, the hotel doesn't want to lose the CES, so they got on their knees and satisfied the CES staff.


I strongly suspect your assumptions aren't true and as backing for my suspicions are the hotel actions.

I very much doubt that the hotel(s) tossed customers out of suites just because they wanted to for the heck of it. They'd probably be sued up the ying yang for it if the tossing weren't legit.

I'm not sure what the fine print of the contracts between CES and other organizations or the fine print of the contracts that the guests signed when they checked in, but I'd bet that the tossing out was completely legal and legit.

As to getting permission from staff ahead of time, I'd want to know the wording of what was asked and to whom (like not asking through a third party booking agent -- the way I've often gotten rooms in Vegas (when not staying at my parent's house there)).

Like I said above, CES has been happening for a very long time and I suspect the fine print on all contracts have been long worked out.


RE: Sue the bastards
By mindless1 on 1/11/2010 3:08:02 AM , Rating: 2
The thing is, there were other customers in the hotel right? Those having nothing to do with CES. Did the hotel evict everyone who did not pay a CES fee?

Didn't the hotel have at a minimum an oral contract to supply the room for the period stated? At what point did they state you can't do (this or that)? The only obligation of a hotel guest should be acting appropriate for a hotel which certainly does not exclude having clients over.

Further, you are totally wrong previously. They did not "steal" anything, since they didn't pay they didn't have a booth, period. In what way does their paying for a room and staying in it, decrease the casino profits? It doesn't, only those AT the show do.

Look at it another way. Suppose you throw a party at a motel and you charge for admission and drinks, and I also throw a party in a different hotel room that involves the same thing - partying. Is it reasonable for you to expect the hotel to kick me out because I am having a different party and you argue that maybe if I wasn't having a party more people would pay to go to yours?

Sorry but reality doesn't work like that. Nobody signed any kind of binding agreement to pay show fees if they were in these hotels, nobody agreed not to conduct business or host displays, nor was it ever suggested not to, nor banned.

Does the hotel kick out their paying (already having paid) guests other weeks of the year if they feel they aren't making enough profit off of them?

What planet are you from anyway? Parties don't get to add things to agreements after the fact, after the deal is done which in this case was nothing more than staying in a hotel room.


RE: Sue the bastards
By Canadian87 on 1/15/2010 1:41:02 PM , Rating: 2
WOW, I mean come on people, use your brains.

YES there were other customers at the hotel, no they weren't dragging customers off the CES floor thus removing the possibility that those who paid to be on that floor get at least a glance.

The moment you pay for a small spot on the floor that says "Go to suite K132" you're stealing from CES. The idea is like what you wanted across the street, a collection of small companies so that people who have the money could go and see all their stuff at the same time. Except CES brings BIG names, MORE people, with MORE money, so your invention gets a look from ALL of those people, until someone else tosses up a sign to meet in room K132, and then possibly the person who may invest or buy your product has just taken an elevator to the 10th floor to find out about someones hat with a fan on top.

So you see, it's attention their stealing. People who had nothing to do with CES and people who were on and paid to be on the CES floor were not removed from the building. Just those who were siphoning patrons of CES away from the CES floor. If you can't pay to be on the floor, well thats unfortunate, but I can't pay to play in the World Series of Poker but you don't see me trying to start a poker tournament in the hotel suite with a buy-in of $500, and I wouldn't be surprised if I got kicked out (esp for bringing in all those tables)

SO, heres what I can suggest, a. you find another avenue, you can't afford to pay for those big money patrons to come stop by, that's sad but thats how it works. b. that hotel across the street with a medium sized convention center, you contact all those other small vendors, over to split the cost, host an event and you'll get the same patrons you got before if you advertise right (not by buying a tiny spot on the CES floor that says "Go across the street to see our crap." But by using any other mode of advertising, most everyone there has a laptop, try to target CES goers on the web.

c. use craigslist

One thing I'd like to mention, what if all these little companies paid their lets say $10,000 to be on the floor. And Intel decides, well Eff CES, I want my OWN show, and holds a large conference in the room next door that could take upwards of 2hrs to fully explore, well then $10 says you'd think you'd just wasted your $10,000 because Intel is now siphoning patrons away from the CES floor you paid $10,000 to be on because you expected them to be there.

so please be less mindless, go to high school, learn how to do basic reasoning, then come back.


RE: Sue the bastards
By Dutcher1 on 1/10/10, Rating: -1
RE: Sue the bastards
By daInvincibleGama on 1/10/2010 6:34:11 PM , Rating: 5
The hotel sold to the rights to the usage of suite space for the night. Then they proceeded not to honor their contract. There were no "proper channels" specified.

The CES is a third party that had their own contracts with the same vendor. What was happening was called "competition" and is not illegal. Neither is poaching customers. Read up on "illegal interference with a business model".


RE: Sue the bastards
By daInvincibleGama on 1/10/2010 6:36:23 PM , Rating: 4
P.S. If the hotels didnt waqnt the suites used for product showcasing or business meetings(WTF? No businessmen allowed?), they should have stipulated that in during the transaction. They did not, and they don't have the right to unilaterally change the terms of sale. It would like me choosing a higher wage for my last few weeks of work.


RE: Sue the bastards
By Oregonian2 on 1/12/2010 6:22:04 PM , Rating: 2
I gather then that you've seen the contract they signed getting the room (rather than making assumptions about it)?

I haven't seen it, so I make only passive comments stated as assumptions, but your strong stance leads me to think you've actually read their contracts including all the fine print. Did you?

The very fact that they got tossed out leads me to believe that they had the right to do so in the contract signed.


RE: Sue the bastards
By muIIet on 1/11/2010 10:28:38 AM , Rating: 2
I have a better idea. Have it on the East coast!!!


RE: Sue the bastards
By ElderTech on 1/10/2010 5:09:05 PM , Rating: 2
For everyone's benefit, a multi-tiered approach could work, with CEA levying a (much?) lower fee for smaller companies who would display, etc. in their suites, or other less favorable locations. Different levels of fees based on exposure/location of display, and size/ability to pay.


RE: Sue the bastards
By Dutcher1 on 1/10/2010 6:22:11 PM , Rating: 1
Probably the smartest post here.

I stick by the assertion that companies who want access to the CES audience should pay for that access. But does it have to be $10K? Nope. Seems like a different display offering at a lower price (and with lower exposure) might be a viable option.

Doing it by company size/ability to pay is a really slippery slope...I'd love a Bentley, but wouldn't expect them to give me one for $20K just because I can't afford the $200K sticker price.

Doing it by company size is also tricky because so many of the players are privately held and there's no real way to verify annual sales, etc.

Floor location and size of the exhibit space (maybe a limited number of table tops or small pod-style display units) at a cut rate seems like it might solve a lot of the problems.


RE: Sue the bastards
By wardww on 1/9/2010 7:08:07 PM , Rating: 4
NO, but to litigate against hotels that cow-tow to the CES organizers in pursuit of the almighty $ and who may well have broken the law by evicting those companies (if , as they claim, the hotels originally said ok to the demos and meetings in rooms, as stated in the article, and then caved in to the CES management). I advise a class action suit.

Right to Evict Persons Admitted as Guests

Hotels may generally evict a guest and keep the room rental payment, despite the EVICTION, for the following reasons:

* Disorderly conduct
* Nonpayment
* Using the premises for an unlawful purpose or act
* Bringing property onto the premises that may be dangerous to others
* Failing to register as a guest
* Using FALSE PRETENSES to obtain accommodations
* Being a minor unaccompanied by an adult registered guest
* Violating federal, state, or local hotel laws or regulations
* Violating a conspicuously posted hotel or motel rule
* Failing to vacate a room at the agreed checkout time

Generally speaking, to avoid liability for evicting a guest, the guest must have refused to pay; or the innkeeper must reasonably have believed that the person used the room or premises for an unlawful purpose or brought a potentially dangerous object onto the premises.


RE: Sue the bastards
By MatthiasF on 1/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: Sue the bastards
By wardww on 1/10/2010 4:42:33 AM , Rating: 4
If you read the article, it states that the evicted parties had received prior approval to carry out these activities. It has nothing to do with being a wannabe lawyer MatthaisF you insolent dog turd.


RE: Sue the bastards
By Oregonian2 on 1/10/10, Rating: -1
RE: Sue the bastards
By daInvincibleGama on 1/10/2010 6:38:30 PM , Rating: 3
Wow... please stop.


RE: Sue the bastards
By mindless1 on 1/11/2010 3:16:44 AM , Rating: 4
Are you really suggesting the hotel management had no clue what Company XYZ and ABC were doing renting rooms during CES?

Really? Did they or didn't they give them a room? Did they or didn't they have the ability to quite simply cross-check reservations with those attending as paying CES booths?

They tried to change the rules after the fact which is a big no-no. What they should have done instead is to draft new policy that is very clearly stated prior to NEXT YEAR'S SHOW. This year, it was simply too late for them to legitimately do anything about it.

... and don't you think it dawned on them what was going on when they saw these companies bringing in the products in the first place, or did you think they thought to themselves "oh, that stack of motherboards on a lit plexiglass shelf is probably just a fancy suitcase with shampoo and a razor in it"?

Nonsense, they were fully aware ahead of time, it's not as though this hotel room display and business meeting situation hasn't been going on for years and years, even if at a lesser scale than last year.

At any time, ahead of time all they have to do is clearly state the rules. This is required because they are also using special rules to kick people out which do not apply to regular business customers which also regularly conduct meetings in rooms.


RE: Sue the bastards
By MatthiasF on 1/11/10, Rating: -1
RE: Sue the bastards
By mindless1 on 1/11/2010 3:23:03 AM , Rating: 5
... which at the very most might be binding on those exhibiting at CES, not on those that aren't.

Regulations for CES cannot apply to those NOT IN THE EVENT. A hotel is not an event, even if it hosts that event in some area where these companies were not, obviously then they were not at the event only in the same hotel.

If the hotel doesn't like that all they have to do is state it. Yes a hotel is required to state terms of the agreement upon which a room is held and used. It is a contract that cannot have hidden clauses.


RE: Sue the bastards
By MatthiasF on 1/11/10, Rating: -1
RE: Sue the bastards
By neogrin on 1/11/2010 8:21:44 PM , Rating: 2
CES could have kick the Vendors out of the Exhibition Hall. CES Rented the Hall so they can make the rules there

The Vendors were participants, (but not as exhibitors) and only participants while they were wandering around the Hall.

CES did not rent the whole hotel. So outside of the Hall, there is not relationship between the Vendors and CES. The only relationships here are between a) CES and the Hotel b) the Vendors and the Hotel.

The Vendors did not break any of the pre-stated terms for renting the room from the Hotel. (One Vendor even specifically asked if it was ok to have showings in their room)

This boils down to a douche bag move by CES in bulling the hotel to kick out people that CES don't happen to like. period.

Oh and maybe...just maybe...you were down rated because you are just flat wrong.

Ohhh no, it couldn't be that, it has to be a conspiracy of the "robin-hood entitlement crowd" or maybe the aliens...yep, defiantly the aliens...I hear they just hate eyebrows off of you.


RE: Sue the bastards
By ET on 1/11/2010 4:28:51 AM , Rating: 5
They didn't obtain the room using false pretenses. They paid for it. Obtaining the room using false pretenses would be something like flashing a fake FBI badge and asking for it, or whatever.

Nowhere does the law say that legitimate business can't be done in a hotel room.


RE: Sue the bastards
By Dutcher1 on 1/10/10, Rating: -1
RE: Sue the bastards
By biggsjm on 1/10/10, Rating: -1
RE: Sue the bastards
By wardww on 1/10/2010 8:40:06 AM , Rating: 2
Hey Biggsjm

"then I will listen to none of your blathering"

Good, piss of then and leave this post to those who want to comment.........dipshit.


RE: Sue the bastards
By afkrotch on 1/10/2010 11:42:01 PM , Rating: 1
On average a casino makes $72 million more a year. CES will make up to $1 mil for a single registration. Do the math and tell me CES isn't making more than enough to cover the casino.

Not to mention with all the attendees, they inject over $200 mil into the economy. Why? Cause attendees won't just get a hotel room and only to go the convention. They pay for a hotel, eat food, gamble, go look at the porn convention, drink, etc.

Me personally, I'd rather see a new convention pop up elsewhere that isn't Las Vegas. Why not Taiwan? Where most the stuff is made anyways.


RE: Sue the bastards
By FITCamaro on 1/10/2010 1:43:48 PM , Rating: 5
Since when is that a crime?

If you pay for a meeting room and you're told the only restriction is the number of people allowed in the room, you're free to do whatever you want in there.


RE: Sue the bastards
By Oregonian2 on 1/10/10, Rating: -1
RE: Sue the bastards
By hashish2020 on 1/10/2010 5:43:41 PM , Rating: 5
Please...plenty of high end hotels don't interfere with drug transactions as long as there is money in it for them (ie high end suite)

Get some life experience, child


RE: Sue the bastards
By daInvincibleGama on 1/10/2010 6:40:50 PM , Rating: 3
Well said.


RE: Sue the bastards
By vol7ron on 1/10/2010 4:24:25 PM , Rating: 3
I agree. Although the companies are not part of the "event", they are not lobbying in front of the hotel, nor are they advertising in the conference floor. By the facts presented, they aren't doing anything illegal and any business that they want to conduct in their hotel suite is their business, not the conferences.

The CES doesn't own the hotel for the week, they just have rights to the floor. The small companies/employees paid with both time and money for their rooms. They should at the very least be reimbursed.


RE: Sue the bastards
By inperfectdarkness on 1/11/10, Rating: 0
RE: Sue the bastards
By rmclean816 on 1/11/2010 2:40:26 PM , Rating: 2
I swear this place is crawling with trolls.
That's the only reason anyone would say what happened was ok.
Someone related to renting a room to show products as to selling drugs.
I mean come on.


Authority
By teohhanhui on 1/9/2010 1:54:40 AM , Rating: 5
Who is the CEA to tell the hotels what to do?




RE: Authority
By iFX on 1/9/2010 8:27:35 AM , Rating: 3
They pay the hotel a lot more $$$ than a single hotel room, or collection of hotel rooms. The hotels aren't be coerced, it's in their best business interests, or next year the convention might pick another hotel. It's business, not personal.


RE: Authority
By kake on 1/10/2010 3:32:19 AM , Rating: 2
However, at least in the example described at the Venetian, the party inquired beforehand as to the policies of showcasing products in a suite and was given approval.

Wouldn't this kind of treatment be considered reniging of the most blatant and inexcusable form?


RE: Authority
By Dutcher1 on 1/9/2010 4:54:01 PM , Rating: 3
CES is the hotels' customer...a very big customer who helps the hotels generate many millions of dollars in sleeping room revenue, food & beverage revenue, etc.

So CES can absolutely tell the hotels what to do...


RE: Authority
By afkrotch on 1/10/2010 11:50:08 PM , Rating: 3
CES is the hotel's customer for the exhibition floor, not the rooms. Now CES does refer customers to use their block hotels, but it's not mandatory.

CES has no right to tell the hotel to kick ppl out of rooms they have no control over.

Man, have some of you never gone to any kind of convention?


RE: Authority
By Dutcher1 on 1/11/10, Rating: 0
RE: Authority
By mindless1 on 1/11/2010 3:32:36 AM , Rating: 3
Totally right. If CES wants control of individual rooms they can book all the rooms for their events' attendees and then have these "special" rooms distributed.

Until then, the rooms are not under CES control, only the event is.


RE: Authority
By deeznuts on 1/11/2010 1:44:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
CES is the hotel's customer for the exhibition floor, not the rooms. Now CES does refer customers to use their block hotels, but it's not mandatory.

CES has no right to tell the hotel to kick ppl out of rooms they have no control over.

Man, have some of you never gone to any kind of convention?
You are totally missing one key point. They have no right to tell the hotel to kick people out. But they have every right to ASK the hotel to do so. Hmm, CEA or one room renter who isn't there to gamble? I'm positive if the renter of the room had piled up many hours at the blackjack tables they would have had less problems.

Keep in mind the average CES visitor spends less time gambling then the average non CES visitor. The Casino sees green. They put up with the decreased gambling revenues because the CEA pays them. So you have a huge customer on one side, and on the other you have a hotel guest who does not gamble (not all of them of course, but on average). It's an easy decision for the hotel.

It doesn't make what they did right, and I'm not saying that. Just pointing out the flaw in your statement.


RE: Authority
By NicodemusMM on 1/9/2010 6:30:02 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe the hotels see this as a way to make more money amidst a recession. Kick out people that have already paid in full, then re-rent the room to new guests. Better ROI on the room that way. It's Über-sleazy, but the customer really has little recourse.


RE: Authority
By Dutcher1 on 1/10/10, Rating: -1
RE: Authority
By TheBaker on 1/10/10, Rating: -1
RE: Authority
By Dutcher1 on 1/10/2010 4:38:28 PM , Rating: 1
Great analogy. Right on the money. And apparently some here think Best Buy should just let it happen.

Amazing...


RE: Authority
By Davelo on 1/11/2010 6:27:33 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. There are a lot of crooks in this business.


RE: Authority
By afkrotch on 1/11/2010 12:26:11 AM , Rating: 2
No, you park next to Best Buy's parking lot and sell TVs.


Seriously?!
By gookpwr on 1/9/2010 2:07:26 AM , Rating: 1
K, I lived and worked in Vegas while finishing up at UNLV, and I worked as a stripper. I can tell you for a fact I worked in a $10,000 a night suite inside of the Venetian, after the freakin porn convention, and nobody was kicked out of that party! I'm positive if that party wasn't crashed by security, no party thrown by a company attending CES should be crashed either. I think that is just greed taking over.




RE: Seriously?!
By nemoshotyany on 1/9/2010 2:15:56 AM , Rating: 2
And what organization hired you for your services? Are they accepting applications?


RE: Seriously?!
By Suomynona on 1/9/2010 4:37:54 AM , Rating: 5
Pics or you're lying.


RE: Seriously?!
By Camikazi on 1/9/2010 11:01:17 AM , Rating: 2
I have to agree, show pics of you stripping or it did not happen :)


RE: Seriously?!
By mmatis on 1/9/2010 7:04:22 PM , Rating: 5
Are you SURE you want to see HIM naked?
}:-]


RE: Seriously?!
By FITCamaro on 1/10/2010 1:45:44 PM , Rating: 2
Especially with a name like gookpwr.


RE: Seriously?!
By KIRBY1986 on 1/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: Seriously?!
By TheBaker on 1/10/2010 2:07:07 AM , Rating: 2
Remind me how a private party in a suite AFTER a convention relates to siphoning away conventioneers DURING a convention?


RE: Seriously?!
By Oregonian2 on 1/10/2010 2:03:35 PM , Rating: 1
It's not siphoning away conventioneers as such. The room becomes an alternative to the organization being in the CES itself on the convention floor. CES is being denied the corporate registration fees. The reason that hotel room even succeeds is due to the CES event, and the CES wants payment for the service. If the hotel meeting were a month after CES, then I can't see any problem, but if CES's happening contributed to the meeting successes, then CES is due something (their "cut" of the action).


RE: Seriously?!
By afkrotch on 1/10/2010 11:56:53 PM , Rating: 2
If all the floor space is taken and these other small companies decide to just setup shop in a hotel room, then what? CES received all their money from selling floor space, so they aren't losing out on anything.


RE: Seriously?!
By mindless1 on 1/11/2010 3:29:48 AM , Rating: 2
There is nothing wrong with someone offering an alternative to CES. Maybe CES dislikes competition, maybe they'd love to force everyone to pay up front but they did not force everyone who got a room to pay up front.

So what remains is fair use of a hotel room. If there were so many visitors in and out it caused a disturbance, the hotel could rightly insist the traffic be reduced. If the visitors were causing other disruptions they too could be escorted off the premises.

CES is not due anything from companies not having a booth there or otherwise being part of it in an official capacity.

CES did not give them any "service", since CES did not tell people to go to their hotel room. If someone at CES happened to mention where they were, such is life.

If CES wanted a cut from everyone in the hotel all they had to do was make that a stated requirement in the first place, but to wait till later demanding money is probably illegal in itself, let alone the breech of contract for the eviction.


RE: Seriously?!
By Oregonian2 on 1/12/2010 6:17:09 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
CES did not give them any "service", since CES did not tell people to go to their hotel room. If someone at CES happened to mention where they were, such is life.


Not true at all. Vegas is full of people to attend that hotel room BECAUSE of CES.

Tell me that it was purely accidental that the hotel room "parties" were around the time of CES and I'll take that back. Tell me they'd have as many people attending their hotel party had CES not had their event (for which they put up a LOT of money).

quote:
If CES wanted a cut from everyone in the hotel all they had to do was make that a stated requirement in the first place, but to wait till later demanding money is probably illegal in itself, let alone the breech of contract for the eviction.


I'd bet it was, and that it wasn't illegal. CES has been running for a long time and I suspect they've their contracts all in place.

If it were illegal we should see news items about the lawsuits soon. I could be wrong, but I suspect we won't see them.


RE: Seriously?!
By daInvincibleGama on 1/10/2010 6:42:55 PM , Rating: 2
Did you pay your tuition in $1 bills? Just wondering.


vendors?
By Beno on 1/9/2010 7:15:28 AM , Rating: 2
i really hoped you put some names of these vendors.
CES isnt only for the ultra enthusiast.

more than half of the enthusiast crowd buy products from small vendors.




RE: vendors?
By Beno on 1/9/10, Rating: 0
RE: vendors?
By Gungel on 1/9/2010 12:42:20 PM , Rating: 3
The right thing to do is offer small start-ups limited space like a 10' x 10' booth for a reasonable fee.


RE: vendors?
By Beno on 1/9/2010 9:39:45 PM , Rating: 2
i agree but we all know thats unlikely going to happen.


RE: vendors?
By Oregonian2 on 1/10/2010 2:06:49 PM , Rating: 2
Particularly if it runs at a net loss.

CES has to pay the convention facilities for space used (plus overhead if power is wanted at the booth, etc, -- and that can be substantial).


RE: vendors?
By cocoviper on 1/10/2010 10:31:50 PM , Rating: 2
CES isn't anywhere close to running a "net loss". There are regularly well over 100,000 attendees (this year was about 130,000). So we're talking about a small to medium sized city all in attendance to your event- or two full NFL stadiums. And all those people have to eat, pay taxi fares, pay hotel fares, and many of them attend very expensive conferences ($250 a pop this year).

The CEA is just trying to prevent vendors from not paying them plain and simple.


RE: vendors?
By maverick85wd on 1/10/2010 4:51:26 PM , Rating: 1
yes, exactly. Because good ideas and products only come from those businesses that can afford to propogate at large events such as CES.

Seriously, stfu while grown folks are talking


RE: vendors?
By afkrotch on 1/10/2010 11:46:16 PM , Rating: 2
I think most innovation comes from the small companies. Course eventually, the large company just buys them out, but the small company needs a way to show their product off to the larger companies, so they can get bought.


RE: vendors?
By kroker on 1/10/2010 1:52:52 AM , Rating: 2
It seems one of them was Zalman: http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/blog/160

quote:
PS: Jason from Dailytech had a meeting with Zalman right before ours and we bumped at each other there. He posted a more detailed report on this incident. According to him, the value of the CEA fee for companies that decide to display products on their hotel rooms is of USD 10,000.


RE: vendors?
By hellokeith on 1/10/2010 4:06:09 AM , Rating: 3
Poor Zalman. Good company that I'm proud to support. Have their CPU coolers in my last 3 PC's.

Zalman may have in earnest contacted the hotel ahead of time and been given the green light, or they may have known about the "restrictions" and thought they could get away with it - we probably won't ever know.

I can see it from the perspective of the CEA, that if the show has value, why are you not paying for space at the show. But getting a company kicked out of the hotel half-way through the week only gives CEA and the hotel a bad name, and will assuredly motivate these smaller companies to take their business to a non-CEA-sponsored hotel for next year's show.


RE: vendors?
By MadMan007 on 1/10/2010 8:45:00 AM , Rating: 2
Hah, darn that shady underhanded Zalman, they are clearly a disreputable company!!1


RE: vendors?
By Oregonian2 on 1/10/10, Rating: -1
RE: vendors?
By mpc7488 on 1/11/2010 2:29:42 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for the link. I was interested to read Jason and Gabriel's accounts since I encountered the same thing with another supplier in the Palazzo. They were being harassed by security for the meetings, they had to keep their door closed and remove half of their equipment from the room. I had several meetings at the Venetian and coming/going was much less restricted, the Palazzo seems to have been much more heavy handed. This is odd, since the Palazzo was not a specific CES hotel and did not have special rates negotiated! http://www.cesweb.org/hotelTravel/hotel.asp

One could speculate that the Palazzo, although attached to the Venetian, was not getting the same premiums for CES attendees and therefore chose to restrict their activities more tightly. Or some other reason. Regardless, it seems unfortunate to me that smaller suppliers that prefer a more private setting are being strong-armed outside of the show floor.


i say they should file suit
By rika13 on 1/9/2010 10:33:29 AM , Rating: 4
the vendors who work CES might be bound by a no-compete clause forbidding the showing in hotel rooms; but the CEA outright paying hotels to kick out non-CES vendors is extortion, and being its organizations, would fall under the RICO act




RE: i say they should file suit
By catavalon21 on 1/9/2010 10:31:09 PM , Rating: 2
Extortion? Racketeering? In Las Vegas? Surely you jest...

*/ Sarcasm off


By daInvincibleGama on 1/10/2010 6:46:03 PM , Rating: 2
lolz


RE: i say they should file suit
By Dutcher1 on 1/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: i say they should file suit
By ekv on 1/10/2010 3:13:58 AM , Rating: 2
RICO is over-used.

However, the conventions I've attended only block rooms for so long, then they give 'em up [else the organizers have to pay full price for 'em].

If the hotel said it was ok to do business in a suite then, after the suite has been rented, rescind their decision, said hotel ought to return the rental money as well. Having said that, the businesses that were booted appear to have been trying to skirt the issue of paying for floor space. If so, then they could still (pay to) enter the floor area, hand out business cards and conduct meetings outside the hotel. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. Very common. Albeit not as hifalutin as a meeting in an Intel-esque suite.


RE: i say they should file suit
By Dutcher1 on 1/10/2010 4:03:40 AM , Rating: 1
Agreed on the hotel refund. If it's true, those companies should never have been told that it was OK to use the room for sales purposes.

Charging vendors a higher ticket price than buyers (but less than the regular booth fee) to get onto the floor might be a great idea, but impossible to enforce because people will lie and few will pay it. So it seems like a one-price-fits-all registration fee is probably the only option.

I know nothing about the economics of that show, but it seems unlikely that $100 tickets (most of which are probably free "early registration" passes) wouldn't generate enough income to reach breakeven on a show that size, especially if they lose a lot of booths to vendors who just want to walk the floor. Unfortunately, if they charge any more than they do now to get in, then they risk losing tons of attendee buyers, which would obviously not be good.


Vegas
By Zebo on 1/9/2010 1:57:55 AM , Rating: 5
Vegas hates CESers for the most part - y'all understand mathematics so they don't make much from your presence.




Abusing exhibitors at CES?
By FijiDiver on 1/9/2010 3:36:45 AM , Rating: 5
This is the sort of thing that kills events like this. Anyone remember COMDEX?




CES and Small Vendors
By tmactech on 1/10/2010 10:34:02 PM , Rating: 2
Should Walmart ask every city to shut down all of the ALDI's for opening stores across the street from every super center? Should McDonalds keep other fast food restaurants from opening across the street? Competition is good, but this isn't even competition. It is a small vendor (like ALDI) taking advantage of the advertising that a large vendor (like Walmart) does and getting a few of the customers that might go to the larger vendor. It is highly unlikely that CES was hurt by any of the this. They are simply being a bully! Let the small company gain from this, when they get large enough to afford CES, they will be full participants.




RE: CES and Small Vendors
By Dutcher1 on 1/10/2010 11:27:43 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah, but this isn't fair competition...it's more like McDonalds agreeing to lease a 5-acre site from a landowner with 10 acres of contiguous property as long as the landowner agrees not to build a Wendy's on the adjacent 5-acre lot (or let someone else put a Wendy's there). If the landlord won't agree to that, then McDonalds would be prefectly justified in refusing to lease from that landowner, or compelling the landowner to stop construction if they enter into the lease and a Wendy's suddenly starts going up next door.

As for the "bully" thing, just seems logical that they have to nip to this stuff in the bud to keep it from proliferating.


RE: CES and Small Vendors
By harryjohnston on 1/11/2010 7:26:49 PM , Rating: 2
OK, and to carry on with this analogy, suppose McDonald's persuaded the landowner to have the Wendy's torn down. Shouldn't Wendy's be properly compensated by the landowner for their losses? Or would you assert that it was their fault because they shouldn't have tried to "pirate" the McDonald's customers?


That's Veags
By Gootch on 1/10/2010 1:55:38 PM , Rating: 4
I think the proverbial "stealing of CES audience" is a bit overstated. If the folks didn't want to go to the main event, they are free to make that choice. What does Vegas do during the Porn convention? Kick out all the hookers for stealing the audience. Get real. The draconian behaviour of CES is giving them a bad name. And I will never stay at the Venetian or the Palazzo again. But, as we all know, anything goes in Vegas, including obviously still, many Mafia techniques for securing business.




BAD CES, BAD Hotel Management
By pjs on 1/10/2010 6:41:38 PM , Rating: 2
If I rented a room and was doing nothing illegal or against STATED (in the room rental agreement) hotel policy, than I should be able to talk to other people in my rented room about business if I want.

As much as I am not fond of lawyers, those who were kicked out of their rooms should collectively sue the hotel owners and possibly CES.

I wonder: if a hotel guest brings back some fast food to his/her room, will the expensive resaurant owners pressure the hotel management to kick him/her out?

Shame on you CES and shame on you hotel owners/management for doing this.




RE: BAD CES, BAD Hotel Management
By Dutcher1 on 1/10/10, Rating: 0
RE: BAD CES, BAD Hotel Management
By afkrotch on 1/11/2010 12:29:46 AM , Rating: 2
Obviously the other vendors didn't seem to care, as they themselves were attending these exhibits that were in the hotel rooms.


By notReally on 1/9/2010 1:38:56 PM , Rating: 3
In most states, the Inn-Keeping laws prohibit this kind of eviction. In those states it is very difficult for a hotel to remove a paying guest, period. Nevada may well be a special case, given the power of the hospitality industry in that state. Here's a link on Inn-Keeping laws and tenant eviction.

http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/ho...




CEA should make a decision
By abs0lut3 on 1/9/2010 1:57:39 AM , Rating: 2
To either stick to their strong arm tactics or to embrace these smaller vendors in order to build their future together. For us, it is obvious that the latter is the best choice. I doubt it that it ever struck CEA's collective minds though...




simple cure
By KDOG on 1/9/2010 7:40:27 AM , Rating: 2
Simple cure for all that. Go somewhere else next year. I'm sure another city would love to reap the financial benefits of hosting a show like that....




By SiliconAddict on 1/9/2010 1:01:52 PM , Rating: 2
Of course they are going to cater to their larger customer. That said. If the purchase was outside a CES room block, if they even had a room block, the hotel was well within their rights to tell CES to bugger off. They didn't because there are plenty of other convention hotel in that town to work with....the whole don't bite the hand thing. *shrugs* Whatever. This is a tempest in a teapot, move along everyone. Nothing to see here.




Trend
By CalWorthing on 1/9/2010 10:41:13 PM , Rating: 2
I've noted that in other professions/businesses there is a trend away from the 'conference center' trade-shows towards having in-the-hotel-room presentations. The 'Suite" hotel chain(s) (Embassy is one)are encouraging same. The vendors have found much lower associated costs (not having to pay huge setup fees to local set-up union) and have more detailed encounters with customers.




By furong on 1/10/2010 12:41:47 AM , Rating: 2
Americans believe the Chinese are authoritarian control freaks and Chinese aren't capitalists.
CEA has proved that the States are becoming the organization
controlled, control freaks.




By partyaficionado on 1/10/2010 9:59:56 AM , Rating: 2
As an event professional, I must say that I completely understand CES 's position here. The vendor is taking money out of their pockets. It happened to one of our events years ago. A competitor pull up a bus and took our attendees to an offsite event during our multi million dollar investment. It was wrong and we were upset, but we didn't come up with an approach to address.

As a small business owner, I see the markting decision by the vendor. Call it Gorilla tactic or stealing these type of thing happens ALL the time.

Maybe its a Southern California thing, but you can buy DVDs, Shirts, Hats and even Tamales in the parking lots of most malls and grocery store chains, and isn't that the philosphy of the popular FOOD TRUCK phenomenon? No one complains about the food trucks, and many of my event colleagues have included them in their events. Trucks pull up outside the meeting space and atttendees flock to the trucks vs. Chunking down $25.00 per person for eggs and toast. (But that's another rant)

To avoid paying the high cost of rent and still get your products out to the masses. Just as the entertainment industry has had to do over the past few years, conference organizers will need to find a way to capitalize. Maybe CES could have a small biz tier that allows vendors to display and meet in their rooms, but on limited times and days, and CES could even manage the appointments so they can get an accurate picture of what's happening at their event. (All of their event)

On another note:

Maybe this vendor could take a page from the bootleggers, er and Elvis.

1. Don't leave your product on display in your subsidises room, (keep the stuff in your trunk). nothing too see here people.

2. Don't hang around in the same spot too long. After the big party, get out. (Drop the mic and walk off the stage). *Elvis voice* Thankuverymuch

@partyaficionado




3 parties, all wrong
By wvh on 1/10/2010 7:03:53 PM , Rating: 1
It's obvious there are three parties here: CES, those small companies, and the hotels.

CES is wrong because apparently they charged so much for floorspace smaller compagnies rather take the risk undercutting it because they have difficulties to afford it. I've read numbers such as $10000 for the permission of doing business in a hotel room? Come on...

The small companies who do business in hotel rooms are morally wrong in the sense that they take advantage of the whole organisation without contributing their fair share. In effect, to some degree they are leeches.

The hotels are wrong because they are using brute force to evict customers from their premises, even after apparently giving explicit permission to organise meetings and conduct business. Without tangible reasons throwing out people – without refund even – is unforgivable and might very well be illegal. To be giving up their core business of hospitality for a handful of money handed to them by the CES organisers is rather disturbing.

Argue what you want, all three parties share part of the blame, and just how much blame is personal opinion.




RE: 3 parties, all wrong
By Dutcher1 on 1/10/2010 7:24:34 PM , Rating: 1
Brilliantly put, wvh..I disagree with a few of the details (especially with the hotels, who are really caught in a no-win situation), but the gist of your post is spot-on.

Anyway, congrats. You managed to sum this up better and more objectively in one post than the rest of us did in 120.


No Competition
By sedluk on 1/10/2010 7:46:11 PM , Rating: 2
Hotels cannot accept a reservation and then add conditions to the use. Otherwise they are not only responsible for the room rate but also all costs incurred for the trip, airfare, equipment rental and also possibly punitive damages.

You may not like the fact that competing with CES is legal. You may be repulsed by the fact that any successful product can have competition. It is legal in this country to compete with successful products, there are rules that prohibit unfair play like trademarks. You could try to start up a nearby tech show. There are rules of fair play and if CES tries to unfairly stop you they have broken the law. It looks like CES has broken the law.




A new bunch of goodfellas
By trisct on 1/11/2010 12:28:34 PM , Rating: 2
Vegas knows how to keep the big spenders happy, by breaking a few smaller arms if necessary. This shouldn't be surprising to anyone, given the city's history. Gangsters don't have to be consistent.




CES Suggestion!
By tech2010 on 1/11/2010 3:28:10 PM , Rating: 2
I know the person responsible for making booking arrangements for one of these companies closely. Apparently she had mentioned to Venetian that the company was planning to have business meetings in that suite and asked about the limitations at the time of booking but the only limitation mentioned by Venetian was the number of guests. Also, it was suggested by CES itself to book directly through Venetian when they couldn’t find a pricing solution to book the suites through CES.




Anti-Trust
By Malachai1 on 1/11/2010 6:21:36 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder what the Anti-Trust Division of the Department of Justice would have to say about this behavior. This is the sort of competition-stifling behavior that our anti-trust laws were created for.




Lunch @ Piero's?
By MoFoQ on 1/12/2010 12:52:28 AM , Rating: 2
There's already one company that I know of that does host a parallel event at the same time as CES (and it's right across the street from it too) for years, known as Lunch @ Piero's

http://www.via.com.tw/en/company/events/ces2010/in...
or
http://www.lunchat.com




Lunch @ Piero's?
By MoFoQ on 1/12/2010 12:54:04 AM , Rating: 2
There's already one company that I know of that does host a parallel event at the same time as CES (and it's right across the street from it too) for years, known as Lunch @ Piero's

http://www.via.com.tw/en/company/events/ces2010/in...
or
http://www.lunchat.com




Its not fair!!
By Freezebyte on 1/9/2010 2:36:19 AM , Rating: 1
I wanna go to one of these shows so bad!!! My GF is working down their now and I simply didn't have the money or the time to fly down there to this but but her coworker gets to go and have all the fun. I hate living in this state....




wahhhhhh
By Lifted on 1/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: wahhhhhh
By PhatoseAlpha on 1/9/2010 2:46:51 AM , Rating: 3
On the face of it, it's extortion by a trade organization. At the very least you can bet there will be lawyers very intently pouring over hotel agreements.

If "Oh by the way, CES is strong arming hotels into kicking out guests they don't like." isn't a story, what is?


RE: wahhhhhh
By Dutcher1 on 1/9/2010 11:32:23 PM , Rating: 1
No, it's not.

Suppose for a minute that Apple is "CES", and the company that makes the iPhone screen -- which is obviously Apple's supplier and a company that benefits enormously from iPhone sales -- is "the hotel".

Should that screen maker be allowed to produce its own "iFone" knock-off and sell it directly to Apple's own customer list at a fraction of the price? No way. Should the screen maker be allowed to do that as it trades on the real iPhone's brand name, advertising dollars and customer base to sell its "iFone" knock-off while it simultaneously rakes in heaps of money from real iPhone sales? Absolutely not. Would Apple be within it's rights to make sure that their screen maker was prohibited from engaging in those types of activities?

You betcha. And would it make any difference if all the vendors that were supplying parts for the bogus "iFone" (i.e.: the CES party crashers who got the boot) were irritated by that? No, because the whole concept is wrong.

Different cast of characters with the CES thing, obviously, but same basic premise.


RE: wahhhhhh
By wardww on 1/10/2010 8:50:51 AM , Rating: 3
As they say in Brazil, Dutcher1, "you are slipping on the mayonnaise".
Your analogy is a very poor one indeed. Name me even one LCD manufacturer who would even dare divert from their core business and screw their own pooches by attempting to make an iPhone knockoff. Not to mention that they mostly know nothing about phone technology, THEY MAKE LCD SCREENS FOR CHRISTSAKE!! This is so far outside reality its absurd. You are off base with this one.


RE: wahhhhhh
By Dutcher1 on 1/10/2010 4:34:13 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry wardww, but my feet are still firmly planted on the ground -- despite the fact that you keep throwing mayo on the floor...

The analogy still holds because hotels (aka: the LCD makers in this scenario) that allow vendors to sell from their sleeping rooms really are screwing themselves. Big time. Shows like this can't survive if that kind of stuff in condoned and allowed to proliferate (which will happen if it's not enforced)...So they would be biting the hand that feeds them (the event organizer) if they allowed guests to circumvent the show floor by using sleeping rooms as sales suites.

Thanks for helping me make the case that the whole idea is ludicrous, though. That was exactly my point.


RE: wahhhhhh
By harryjohnston on 1/11/2010 7:30:59 PM , Rating: 2
But in this case it's a third party being sold screens (rooms) by the hotel. The hotel might be in the wrong, if they really had a contract saying they wouldn't rent rooms to anyone else, but the third party isn't to blame.


RE: wahhhhhh
By Jalek on 1/9/2010 3:12:20 AM , Rating: 2
Just another reason to skip this convention.
Aren't these things a bit outdated anyway?


Good for CES...
By Dutcher1 on 1/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: Good for CES...
By MadMan007 on 1/9/2010 6:45:37 AM , Rating: 3
No. To be equivalent to what you're saying the vendors who didn't buy floor space would still have to be getting floor space without paying for it. They are not, they are simply using their paid for hotel suites to conduct business just like any other business traveller. If they pay for a hotel room they ought to be able to do whatever they damn well please within it within the boundaries of the law.


RE: Good for CES...
By Dutcher1 on 1/9/10, Rating: 0
RE: Good for CES...
By MadMan007 on 1/10/2010 8:53:05 AM , Rating: 2
So maybe the CEA should implement mind-control over their audience so they can keep the audience from going where the CEA doesn't want them to ^_^ Oh wait, they are humans with free will and can do what they want, and they are not a 'product' although I understand what you're saying about conventions drawing an audience.

The people taking the CEA's side in this are pretty clueless anyway - this kind of stuff goes on at all trade conventions, with alternate venues or simply side-show room rentals and schmoozing. Coming down strong on the small vendors rather than working out something more fair for both sides just makes the CEA look like bullies.


RE: Good for CES...
By mmatis on 1/9/2010 7:07:38 PM , Rating: 2
Boundaries of what law? This IS Vegas, after all...


RE: Good for CES...
By wardww on 1/9/2010 7:12:35 PM , Rating: 2
Hey madMan007 dude, read my posts. We should get together and crucify these mothers. They just don't get it, its not about CES, or freeloading or left or right wing politics, its about freedom from manipulation by third parties. Your room, you pay, you do what the hell you like within the law within those walls. Simple as that!!!!


RE: Good for CES...
By Dutcher1 on 1/9/2010 10:20:44 PM , Rating: 1
Unless what you do within those walls violates contractual obligations made by the property owner (the hotel) to the event organizer (CES). 99% sure that's the case here.

If a vendor wants to meet prospective customers in a Vegas hotel room anytime before CES (or anytime after), then they should feel free to do that. But if they want access to the audience that CES brings, then they have to pay for it. Amazing that some here don't get that...if you see value in their audience, then buy a booth. If you don't, then go find a hotel room in Orlando.

You're right on 1 count, wardww...it's not about politics. It's about what's right and what's wrong. Tradeshows are not a free service for vendors to sell their stuff. It costs enormous sums of money to produce and run these things, and vendors (as the primary financial beneficiaries of these shows) need to pony up or that sales opportunity simply won't exist.


RE: Good for CES...
By Oregonian2 on 1/10/2010 2:18:42 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, strangely enough the event organizer (CES) doesn't want to go out of business either.


RE: Good for CES...
By harryjohnston on 1/11/2010 7:19:46 PM , Rating: 2
Last time I checked it wasn't possible to force your contractual obligations onto a third party without their consent. That is, if the Hotel was contractually obligated to prevent people from displaying wares in their rooms, they should have made this a condition of renting the room; they can't ethically unilaterally enforce it after the case.

You're right about one thing - this is a question of what is right and what is wrong. And if CES didn't want vendors setting up in "their" hotel they should have taken steps to prevent it ahead of time. Doing so retroactively was, quite simply, wrong.


RE: Good for CES...
By tradeshow on 1/9/10, Rating: 0
RE: Good for CES...
By wvh on 1/9/2010 10:13:54 AM , Rating: 2
I think so... You ate beans too?


RE: Good for CES...
By FaaR on 1/9/2010 6:42:10 PM , Rating: 2
You are obviously not very intelligent, and not very good at reading comprehension either.


RE: Good for CES...
By Dutcher1 on 1/9/2010 10:29:43 PM , Rating: 2
The post by tradeshow made perfect sense to me...just makes the point (in a sarcastic way) that you can't trade on another's company's product to sell stuff to that company's customers. It's blatantly wrong to do so. Pretty obvious stuff, and very cleverly said.


RE: Good for CES...
By zxvxz on 1/10/2010 5:02:14 PM , Rating: 2
if that made sense to you (as if the two situations are analogous to each other), you read the original article or what tradeshow commented.. wrong.


RE: Good for CES...
By Dutcher1 on 1/10/10, Rating: 0
RE: Good for CES...
By Mind Steal3r on 1/10/10, Rating: 0
RE: Good for CES...
By Dutcher1 on 1/11/10, Rating: 0
RE: Good for CES...
By mindless1 on 1/11/2010 3:58:39 AM , Rating: 2
Quite wrong, individual companies did not misrepresent themselves as being THE CES event, obviously these were individual hotel rooms and they made no false claims.

What you terribly fail to grasp when you wrote that "CES is the hotel's customer" is that THESE OTHER COMPANIES WERE THE HOTEL'S CUSTOMERS TOO.

The hotel entered an agreement for a room. They were not wearing blinders, certainly they knew these companies came for CES and certainly CES knew beforehand (from last year, prior year, prior year, and so on).

All the hotel had to do to reserve rights is to state them at the time of the contract with these individual companies - just as I'm sure they do with CES. Without that, it's just another hotel guest.

The point you're making is totally off base. Individual companies clearly identifying themselves as the company they are and have been is no misrepresentation at all. If your beef is simply that they used the event to their advantage, do tell us who doesn't try to use situations to their advantage?

Are you implying that everywhere you go, you are imposed upon to pay anyone who stretches out their hand without any agreement from yourself? Certainly no matter where you are, you have some kind of benefit from human beings that came before, are still there, or have left...

The concept you fail to accept is called an agreement. There is no imposition without one, nor is one between the hotel and a guest broken by a third party who also happens to be a guest, with terms not in the agreement.

Here's a fun thought - Those companies not attending CES should demand money from CES, since their presence near the CES event made CES all the more attractive to come out to LV to see.

Here's another fun thought - Those companies could charge $1.95 to have booths and demand CES be kicked out because CES has other companies that haven't paid them - never mind they never asked for a booth nor set up in their room.

Don't ever automatically assume the "big guy" is right against the little one. Might is not right.


RE: Good for CES...
By Dutcher1 on 1/11/2010 12:36:47 PM , Rating: 2
Your facts are wrong. Your post is too long. And your "logic" is anything but. Can't even get my arms around what you're trying to say, to be completely honest...it's nonsense from top to bottom.

Nuff said. I'm done here.


RE: Good for CES...
By putergeek00 on 1/11/2010 1:32:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm starting a new publication..it's called Daily Teck.

Hate to spoil your plans, but there's no way that would fly..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Rowe_%28student%...

DT would have a hay-day with you. :)


Simply Put...
By DeafMute on 1/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: Simply Put...
By DeafMute on 1/9/2010 11:52:48 PM , Rating: 2
In case you didn't get this from my post, I think it's also reasonable to say that even though you aren't getting floorspace, merely showcasing your products at the same time in almost the same place is still taking advantage of what the CEA is providing and you should have to pay for that...

If you're not benefitting from the event even though you aren't at the event then why don't you do your showcasing any of the other three-hundred-someodd days of the year?


RE: Simply Put...
By Oregonian2 on 1/10/10, Rating: -1
RE: Simply Put...
By afkrotch on 1/11/2010 12:24:14 AM , Rating: 2
If I rent a building, next door for the 3 days of the CES, and peddle my wares, CEA can't do crap about it.

There is absolutely nothing illegal about taking advantage of such a situation. If I decide to roll a roach coach across the street to sell my food at cheaper prices than the hotel's restuarant, what happens? Not a whole lot of anything, if I am legally allowed to sell food off my roach coach.

If the hotel gave permission to do such within their hotel, then they are fully allowed to display whatever they feel like within their hotel room.


RE: Simply Put...
By mindless1 on 1/11/2010 3:44:09 AM , Rating: 3
False. "Taking advantage" is not a contract to pay someone. You are not obligated to pay someone for something you do not agree to, period, with exceptions like legal fines.

Here is an example: Suppose I have a restaurant right next to Burger King. Suppose we both leased the property from the same company. If someone pulls into Burger King then decides when leaving to come over to my restaurant, do I owe Burger King a cut of my profits?

If the company I leased the property from did not forbid a restaurant when lease was signed, money paid, if it is not illegal and is zoned ok, etc, can they just decide to kick me off the property because Burger King is whining in greed about wanting more money?

Who doesn't "want" more money? That is never a compulsion for you or I do pay for anything we didn't agree to, nor is it a sacrifice of our contractual rights to the lease, or to a hotel room or whatever, unless terms provided when the deal was made have been broken.


wait a minute
By tradeshow on 1/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: wait a minute
By DigitalFreak on 1/9/2010 8:13:09 AM , Rating: 4
You're an ass. If I pay for my room in FULL, I can hold meetings/demos in there if I damn well please. I hope these companies sue the CES management into oblivion.


RE: wait a minute
By iFX on 1/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: wait a minute
By wardww on 1/9/2010 10:37:37 AM , Rating: 2
You are wrong my friend. While you are renting that room for a set period of time, you are in legal possession of that room during that time. You have effectively "bought" that room for that time period and there are laws to protect you to that effect. You may NOT be simply thrown out based on the whims of the owner and he may not enter that room without due cause. If the OWNER did not stipulate that demos/meeting could not be held in the room, then the renters were within their rights to do so. Meetings are held in hotel rooms across the world every minute of every day. This is CES trying heavy handed bullying tactics, nothing more. Stop speaking crap.


RE: wait a minute
By iFX on 1/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: wait a minute
By wardww on 1/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: wait a minute
By SiliconAddict on 1/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: wait a minute
By flatfour on 1/9/2010 12:55:13 PM , Rating: 1
Its true. A hotel room is a license that the owner of the property can revoke without reason. Its like going to a baseball game, you can be kicked out if the property owner doesn't want you there anymore.


RE: wait a minute
By wardww on 1/9/2010 2:03:27 PM , Rating: 4
Right to Evict Persons Admitted as Guests

Hotels may generally evict a guest and keep the room rental payment, despite the EVICTION, for the following reasons:

* Disorderly conduct
* Nonpayment
* Using the premises for an unlawful purpose or act
* Bringing property onto the premises that may be dangerous to others
* Failing to register as a guest
* Using FALSE PRETENSES to obtain accommodations
* Being a minor unaccompanied by an adult registered guest
* Violating federal, state, or local hotel laws or regulations
* Violating a conspicuously posted hotel or motel rule
* Failing to vacate a room at the agreed checkout time

Generally speaking, to avoid liability for evicting a guest, the guest must have refused to pay; or the innkeeper must reasonably have believed that the person used the room or premises for an unlawful purpose or brought a potentially dangerous object onto the premises.


RE: wait a minute
By wardww on 1/9/2010 3:00:39 PM , Rating: 1
You can "ask" them to do any god dammed thing you like buddy, but that does not mean its legal!!!


RE: wait a minute
By Oregonian2 on 1/10/2010 2:14:14 PM , Rating: 1
Also depends whom is asked. The front desk person (working at minimum wage) or the hotel's CES coordinator.


RE: wait a minute
By Inkjammer on 1/9/2010 12:08:21 PM , Rating: 2
As somebody who has helped organize conventions in the past, generally when you book a room as part of a convention or trade show you are getting that room at a discounted rate. The discounted rate is only possible through the convention/trade show you are a part of. So to pay the convention rate, but stiff the convention on what they're paying for, is kind of underhanded.

If people get their room outside of the convention room block (no discount) they're free to do whatever they want. But if they're paying discounted rates... then CES does have some influence over their room.


RE: wait a minute
By Dutcher1 on 1/9/2010 4:46:32 PM , Rating: 1
You're wrong. At the end of the day, CES is actually selling an audience, NOT booths. They spent millions to generate that audience and are within their rights to protect that "product" from theft. Guessing CES's hotel contracts would have prohibited the hotels from allowing sales activites in the rooms, especially for vendors that aren't even exhibiting at the show.


RE: wait a minute
By harryjohnston on 1/11/2010 7:28:48 PM , Rating: 2
CES may have spent millions to generate the audience, but that doesn't mean that they own it. (That would be slavery.) Others are perfectly entitled to use any legal means available to take advantage of the audience thus generated.


RE: wait a minute
By Dutcher1 on 1/10/2010 2:06:30 AM , Rating: 1
And you put the "Freak" in "Digital"...very fitting screen name.

So you apparently believe that mall operators should start letting anyone roll their little pushcarts right in off the street set it up outside The Gap? Or maybe they should let them all stick little tables out in the parking lot? Better yet, why don't they just let guys with jewelery and watches tacked to the inside of their overcoats stroll around and peddle their wares to all the diners at the food court?

Reasonably sure that the brass at Macy's and Sears wouldn't love that (nor would most of the mall patrons), but I guess it's OK with you because that's essentially what the vendors who got kicked out of CES just did.

Think about that. Before you speak again. Please. Permitting this kind of stuff does a huge disservice to CES, all the legitimate vendors who exhibit there and, most importantly, the buyers who come to that (or any other) tradeshow.


RE: wait a minute
By Felofasofa on 1/10/2010 10:41:28 PM , Rating: 2
While the activities of the leeches in Hotel rooms is ordinary, and their behaviour parasitical, so blatantly cashing in on the CES audience, it's not illegal, and that's the price you pay for a free society. You might not like what they're doing, but it's their choice. The good vendors who exhibit, shouldn't want to do business with the shady types who see these backyard guys. Just because CES comes to town with wads of cash does not mean rights are suspended.


RE: wait a minute
By cocoviper on 1/10/2010 10:42:11 PM , Rating: 1
No it's not essentially what they did.

You're saying setting up on Sears' property / in their parking lot and trying to sell your stuff is the same as setting up a product showing at a Hotel miles away that you payed for and the only connection to CES is you are in the same town?

Are you insane? So apparently the CEA OWNS Las Vegas and all CE related business in all buildings while CES is in progress? What about once you're on the airplane and you meet someone from another company, are you out of CEA jurisdiction at that point? Maybe you're not allowed to give them your business card until Vegas is safely over the horizon.

Listen to what you are saying dude...


RE: wait a minute
By Dutcher1 on 1/11/2010 12:14:53 AM , Rating: 2
No, that's not what I'm saying. Nice spin, though...

Being in the same town is most definitely not the only connection here. If an event organizer blocks all or most of the rooms in a hotel over its show dates and assumes enormous food & beverage costs, meeting room rental fees and revenue liability for all the sleeping rooms at that hotel, then it seems more than reasonable that they should take steps to make sure the rooms aren't being used to compete against it by prohibiting the use of those rooms for sales activities that eat into their exhibit sales. No idea if that happened here, but if it didn't, it probably should have.

Nothing would (or should) prevent anyone from doing what these vendors did in a hotel or any other facility to which the event owner has no financial commitment. But once a financial commitment exists between a company (doesn't matter if it's an event organizer or any other type of company) and a vendor (like a hotel or any other type of supplier), then that supplier shouldn't be allowed to exploit that relationship in a way that diminishes its customer's ability to generate revenue.

Seems like Business 101 to me...


RE: wait a minute
By wardww on 1/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: wait a minute
By William Gaatjes on 1/9/2010 1:13:17 PM , Rating: 2
You have a point. But the CES management might want to consider the possibility for smaller companies with a tight budget to show their products as well. If they decide to do this in a hotel, then we must assume that must be because they cannot afford a boot. A smaller "startup with a tight budget boot" would be a good solution. This way the CES organizers receive money to continue organizing these events and the smaller tight budget companies can have a chance as well. It seems to me that there is to much showing off. To much "mine is bigger then yours" . An issue that should not exist in a technical environment and should be preserved for a porn convention.


RE: wait a minute
By William Gaatjes on 1/9/2010 1:16:09 PM , Rating: 2
Afcourse the smaller startup boot has a lower price.


Be real people
By carigis on 1/9/10, Rating: -1
"People Don't Respect Confidentiality in This Industry" -- Sony Computer Entertainment of America President and CEO Jack Tretton














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki