 |
||
  |
||
| Pittcon
2003 (or "Attendance is Down!") |
||
| This
seems to be the mantra of every conference,
lately, and was certainly the cry heard among
the rows at Pittcon this past March. In fact,
attendance actually was down, but by less than
3% from last year.* Attendance Although attendance was down by a small amount, some of the booths complained that their attendance was down by quite a lot, and some of the booths that were full on Monday were apparently quite empty later in the week. For one, many of us did expect that some conference-goers would opt to go out to see the sights of Orlando. It also seemed that the booths that were busy were extremely busy and those that were not busy were empty most of the time, from what I saw on the Monday that I attended the conference. It was almost as if attendees were selective about visiting certain booths. Maybe that, as well, was to gain them the time to visit the local attractions. One way to tell is to see what happens at the next conference in Chicago and compare the number of actual attendees versus the booth traffic. With the March Chicago weather usually being bitter, there are sure to be fewer attendees playing hooky. Laboratory Informatics Conference-Within-A-Conference: Speakers Aside from the attendance issues, Pittcon was especially noteworthy, this year, because of its hosting of the Laboratory Informatics “conference within a conference” to replace the LIMS conference that used to be held in June. For $75, an attendee could attend both Pittcon and the Laboratory Informatics Oral Sessions, but not the Laboratory Informatics invited speaker sessions. The invited speaker sessions were covered by the extra Laboratory Informatics fee. I attended Pittcon to give a talk, but I did not attend the Laboratory Informatics sessions. I have gathered some comments on both from various people that did attend one or the other, and one or two that attended both, the comments obtained being mostly in the same vain. My experience with the oral presentation session that I spoke in was positive. The other speakers were quite good; some were exceptional. For me, it was well worth the price of Pittcon to be able to attend these talks. Others that attended some of these sessions made similar comments to me, indicating that they would like to attend more of these talks the next time they attend Pittcon. Those people that attended the Laboratory Informatics sessions were generally less impressed. The main complaint seemed to be the cost. What seems to be behind these comments about the Laboratory Informatics sub-conference seems to be that the cost of Pittcon, itself, is quite low compared to adding on the Laboratory Informatics sub-conference. For the low price of Pittcon, you still get to see some high-quality speakers. I would also suspect that our expectations of the speakers are lower, since the price is much lower, although I want to reiterate that some of the speakers I saw were at a high quality level. Additionally, the Laboratory Informatics oral sessions that were covered under the $75 of Pittcon, were varied-enough that I would imagine that most people would be able to find sessions that interested them. Setting up the Laboratory Informatics conference inside of Pittcon sounds like a way to attract more people, and possibly it did attract more people than when it stood alone, but it now competes with itself, i.e., Pittcon, by offering the oral sessions as a cheap alternative to the invited speakers. Some of the oral session presenters were speakers that might have been invited speaker material. Setting this conference up in this manner makes me ask myself whether I want to spend the extra money to see similar speakers to what can be seen in the oral presentations, plus a couple of lunches and possibly a “fun” evening out. I hope that the Pittcon/Laboratory Informatics promoters can find more reasons for the choice to attend to be easier to justify than it currently is. Laboratory Informatics Conference-Within-A-Conference: The Exposition Floor One other change to Pittcon brought about by the Laboratory Informatics sub-conference was to put the LIMS vendors together in one area. • One argument against this in the past was that attendees might go straight for the LIMS vendors and not see some of the other vendors. That is probably true, but most people looking for a LIMS are not at Pittcon to look at pipettes, as well. • Another argument was that it might not be a good idea to have the LIMS vendors next to each other sharing the traffic. That probably does not make much of a difference. If a person wants to see a number of vendors, they would have trekked all over Pittcon to see them. It is much more convenient to have them together. It makes it easier to go back to each vendor multiple times to ask more questions, if desired. Personally, that is the main reason that discouraged me from attending Pittcon in the past. Those of you who think the LIMS vendors would shy away from being next to each other for fear of their competitors hearing their secrets have not seen the way the people in the industry walk around to each other’s booths and generally seem to know each other. The LIMS industry is a small industry. That said, I should point out that not every LIMS vendor was together in one area. For a variety of reasons, there were a few LIMS vendors scattered about the floor. Some requested to be moved, others merely signed up too late to be included in the already-filled LIMS area. It will be interesting to see who among us shows up for Pittcon and/or Laboratory Informatics next year. Now that the LIMS vendors are mainly together in one area like the old LIMS conference, but we do not have to pay quite as much to attend, I know that I have some extra reasons to attend. Maybe I will see you there, next year. * Borman, Stu. “Pittcon 2003.” Chemical & Engineering News, (2003): 27 29. |
||
| © GeoMetrick Enterprises 2006 | ||