Trade Show Demos: Yet Again a Waste of Time

My company is hosting a large annual industry conference this week. This year, like last, it's online rather than in-person. Shifting to online has been great in terms of boosting registration numbers. The last time we did it f2f, in 2019, we had around 2,000 registrants. This year we reached almost 16,000.

Within this context of huge raw numbers of sign-ups it's not clear how much better engagement we're getting. One place that gap is obvious is in the product demos we're providing. Several people on my team and I are tasked with running demo booths. In our first scheduled demo yesterday ("scheduled" means there's an official time on the agenda for 30 minutes between speaker events when demos are conducted) nobody even showed up for the first 17 minutes. Then one person arrived but was on such a weak Internet connection that he couldn't see anything. He dropped off. A second person came in at the 25 minute mark.

The next few demos we've run were only slightly better attended. We've averaged just three attendees per demo session. Occasionally a person actually interacts with us, describing the problem they're trying to solve or asking questions about the solution we're showing them, but most of the people are in lurker-only mode.

Over the years I've pushed back with my employers on how demos at trade shows are prioritized. We invest a lot of effort— and a lot of cost— to deliver content that very few people see. Moreover, most of the people who do attend demos are students and entry level workers more interested in getting free swag (giveaways like t-shirts or a drawing for an Amazon gift card) than exploring whether our enterprise software products are right for their business.

Confusing Covid-19 Booster Guidance Still Confusing

A week ago I wrote about confusing guidance from the FDA and CDC on Covid-19 booster shots. The advisory panel for the FDA had made one set of recommendations, then the FDA acting director chose a broader set of uses to permit, then a CDC advisory panel voted a narrow, different set of recommendations. Looking to our federal government for specific policy recommendations was like getting an answer from the Magic 8-Ball toy from years ago: REPLY HAZY, TRY AGAIN.

Literally the day after I blogged that the CDC announced a new official policy that, like the FDA's amended official policy a few days earlier, overruled its advisory panel recommendations. CDC Director Rochelle Walensky. Example news coverage: Washington Post article 24 Sep 2021.

Per this CDC press release (published 24 Sep 2021) the CDC now recommends Covid-19 booster shots for:

• People 65+
• Residents in long-term care and institutions
• People 18+ with underlying medical conditions
• People 18+ whose job puts them at increased risk for COVID-19 exposure and transmission.

This policy is clearer than some but still hazy. The CDC page hyperlinks to definitions of which "underlying medical conditions" count but doesn't specify which risky jobs count. And while that policy is somewhat clear, the fact that there are now 2 sets of recommendations and 2 sets of official policy, and among them none of the 4 match, creates further confusion. And oh, this is just for the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine. If you got Moderna or J&J the guidance is different— or doesn't exist yet. REPLY HAZY, TRY AGAIN!

Amid the lack of a single, simple, clear policy, decisions about who should seek booster shots— or who should be permitted to get one— are left up to individual interpretation. For example, by the CDC policy I'm eligible for a booster shot in less than two weeks. I got the Pfizer vaccine, and my second shot was just under 6 months ago.

Today I checked CVS's website. They're the pharmacy chain I got my first two shots from. At the moment they have appointments available at some nearby stores. Thankfully there's no crazy supply and demand problem like the one that sent me driving 210 miles roundtrip for my first shot! But I can't book an appointment yet— at least not if I'm being strictly truthful— because their site won't let you even see the availability schedule until your 6 month anniversary. I put in a fake date just to check availability. And they have a click-thru box asking you to attest that you're eligible under the CDC advisory panel's recommendations— the list that's more strict than the official policy announced 6 days ago. To actually get a shot I'd technically have to lie about my eligibility because they're asking me to attest under an inaccurate policy. Maybe they'll have those problems fixed in a week or two, closer to when I do become eligible. Until then it's REPLY HAZY, TRY AGAIN.

September 2021 Blog Stats

I track a few statistics about my blog. Two of them are relevant this month:

The Second Bloggiest Month. One statistic I track is my average daily ratio of blog posts over time. In the month of September 2021 I've posted 62 entries in 30 days, for an average of 2.07 posts/day. That makes this month my second highest frequency month to date. The one that beat it was September 2020, when I posted an astonishing 80 entries for a runaway 2.67 posts/day.

Incidentally what these two months have in common, other than both being the month of September, is outdoors oriented travel. My tag In Beauty I Walk got a big workout.

Coronavirus Enters the Top 3. Speaking of tags, there was a change in the leader board this month. The tag Coronavirus eclipsed No Rest For The Wicked for the #3 spot. Here are the overall tallies:

1. In Beauty I Walk (526)
2. Planes, Trains, and Automobiles (479)
3. Coronavirus (323)
4. No Rest for the Wicked (316)
5. Road Trip! (280)

These figures come from my LiveJournal account, where I started blogging in 2011 and have been cross-posting since moving mostly to DreamWidth.