Debate: Should LIWF go biennial?

A row is simmering in the industry over the future of the London International Wine Fair following calls for the show to be held every two years.

The yearly London showcase saw a drop in attendance this year to 13,893 and with wine companies struggling to cover their costs during the global recession the calls to run the event every other year have grown louder.

Peter Darbyshire, director of PLB, claims that this year’s show cost his company well in excess of £100,000.

“I do not believe that costs such as these can be justified on an annual basis,” he said. “I would like to start a debate within the trade as to whether this is the most effective use of that sum of money.

“Recognising that an event such as this does have value, my own preference would be for a biennial event alternating with Vinexpo.”

Peter Jackson, managing director of Foster’s EMEA, added: “We agree that the current level of costs required to participate in the London International Wine Fair are becoming increasing unsustainable for us and no doubt the majority of wine companies.

“The level of investment required for stand space, design, logistics, travel and accommodation is disproportionate to the margins we currently make in the UK.

“We do believe in the show and always strive to get maximum value out of it – it’s a great showcase for new world wine and attracts very influential visitors.

“However in order to balance costs Foster’s would like to see it move to a biennial event alternating with Vinexpo. We have many customers who either do one or the other in a Vinexpo year anyway, so it makes good business sense.”

LIWF organiser Brintex defended the levels of investment wine companies put into the show and said if they were to go biennial then another show would step into the void.

Brintex director James Murray said: “Running the fair every other year may seem like a practical idea, but the reality is that a different exhibition organiser would immediately launch a new event in the year we chose not to run which would split the industry, create significant confusion and undermine everything that we have worked towards for the last 30 years.

“It will also end up costing just as much, if not more, as exhibitors try to budget for two stand designs and a completely different modus operandi each year.

“Regardless of this, the vintage cycle offers genuine reason to exhibit annually and the personal contact and tasting opportunity that only an event can offer is still hugely important to many.”

We want to hear your views on the subject. Is LIWF worth the significant amount of money spent on it by wine companies each year? Would the show be better off as a biennial event? What measures did you take to minimise your costs at the fair?

Email your views to debate@thedrinksbusiness.com. We will publish all appropriate responses below.

Alan Lodge, 01.07.2009 

COMMENTS: 

Charles Rojas, managing director, EGBARWINES

"A big yes!
 
"As an Elite Club Member, owner and Managing Director of a 32 yarld old wine export company, I assure you that Hong Kong, Brussels, Pro Wein, Vinitaly, (next yeat these last two are held the same days), London, Sial, Barcelona, Ciudad Real, Kosher Wine, Comida Latina, the WSWA followed by Vinexpo…is far, far too much!
 
"Expenses, logistics, time and all the other goodies that go with it! In Europe, London, Pro Wein and Vinexpo, (moved to Paris), each, every two alternate years and February, April June…is by far enough…I am sure you read the results of the last Vinexpo…they continue to go down."

Terence Kenny, export director, Champagne PANNIER

"Reading about the (f)utility of the annual London International Wine Fair, I fondly look back upon the days of the Wine Fair at Olympia. I know I am not alone.
 
"If the LIWF were to go bi annual like the other monster Vinexpo, would it be completely far fetched for the Wine & Spirit Educational Trust to start a new ‘quasi no profit’ show at Olympia (or elsewhere) ? The profits could be used to fund training and scholarships and the exhibitors would have to be smaller companies. No multi nationals etc.. It would bring it all back home. People would be comparing tasting notes instead of marketing budgets and an entire new generation of visitors would get to see labels that do not have brightly coloured animals on them. Even the new age French paysans would come over !
 
"At the end everyone could go out for a pint. The people from DB would buy everyone numerous rounds as they are of the sporting caliber  Then we could all walk back into London town. A spendid time guaranteed for all.
 
Until then, keep it bubbly"

Demetri Demetriou, managing director, Grands Vins de France Ltd 
 
"It has been a long held view, at least amongst the many members of the wine trade that I have spoken to over the last 20 years, that the LIWSF should be held every two years, so this is nothing new.
 
"In these difficult times, this argument is increasingly powerful and entirely logical and a bi-annual event, in years that do not conflict with VINEXPO, would be the obvious answer. If the organizers of VINEXPO have deemed it not worthwhile to hold this event annually, then one has to question the viability of an annual event in London. The last Fair that my company supported was in 1987, as it was clear even back then that it was no longer financially viable. Given that VINEXPO too has suffered poor attendance this year, would not both venues and the trade benefit from a bi-annual LIWSF?

 
"After 32 years in the Trade, I have witnessed a massive proliferation of peripheral events that seem to suck the life force out of the Wine Trade and seriously question the validity for so many events. But perhaps the key issue here are the prices charged by the organisers, which lies somewhere between prohibitive and abusive and attracts, for the most part, major brands and large organizations, who are the only one who can afford the prices charged, and who clearly use this as a PR exercise. All well enough, but do most members of the wine trade really go to events like these just to be pampered by the major Brands? If for one do not, as I take time out of my busy schedule to meet new producers and, yes, actually try to do some business.
 
In short, make these Fairs reasonably priced, so that they are affordable for all, then they can get back to what they were intended to be – a show case for producers and not just major Brands. If not, then it seems as clear as the nose on your face that they will either have to be bi-annual or risk dying a death. In the end, the trade will vote with it’s feet and it will be awfully quiet in Excel!"

Mark Wilson, general manager UK, national accounts, De Bortoli Wines

"I have long been advocating a biennial show – the excuses have always been that costs would be higher and booking of the space difficult. However, it is no longer sustainable for large or smaller businesses as it stands and surely it would be better to have a successful show every other year than a damp squib every year?

"A lot of exhibitors are only still at the show because they are scared that their absence will be noticed – I think this fear will disappear with rational appraisal of the costs and many of us will drop out before long."
 

 
James Forbes, UK director, Wines of Argentina 

"The argument, such as it is, for switching the LIWF from an annual to a biennial event has no logic to it at all as far as I can see and completely misses the point.

"Leaving aside James Murray’s comments (which I feel are highly pertinent) the simple fact remains that no one is forced to exhibit annually at the LIWF let alone spend £100K on the pleasure. There is nothing, nothing whatsoever, preventing individual companies from making the decision to exhibit in London only in non VinExpo years and in so doing making it for them a bi-annual event. Do it. Tell your customers now that they can see you in London in 2010 and then again in 2012 but in the intervening year they’ll have to travel to Bordeaux.
 
"No matter how you look at it the biennial lobby don’t come out well. Either they are capitulating to wine trade peer pressure (particularly strong in regards to consumer and trade events) too easily or simply making bad commercial decisions. In either case, to shift the blame for this to the format of the LIWF, seems more than a little unfair." 

Nick James, managing director, Pol Roger Ltd

"I have followed several of the eloquent comments made, many of which I agree upon. The fact remains that it all goes down to justification and  what one wants to achieve out of the event. If you are an international company or one who can extract costs in a fair way from your suppliers to support the heavy costs, then all well and good.

"From our own side we pulled out as soon as the fair left Olympia as we felt that the time taken to get down from central London (and elsewhere with the delights of the Docklands railway)and back from Excel would prevent many from attending.

"This factor linked with the very high costs, the need to look after principals 24hrs a day and the somewhat sterile atmosphere of ExCeL, merely confirm that I have made the right decision. It’s a far nicer feeling walking past certain stands, doing some mental arithmetic and feeling smug knowing that company Y is able to support its customers less as a result!

"Every two years? Maybe – but still not for us. SITT is far better for the likes of us."