Showmanship at the Show. —By the Inspector.
Page 4
Page 5
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
At the close of the last Manchester Show we wrote, somewhat trenchantly, perhaps, of what we considered the inability of the average manufacturer to take adequate advantage of the opportunities for publicity which an exhibition of motor vehicles should afford him. We compared his attitude, at most of such shows, with that of a shopkeeper who invests in an elaborate shop front with an artistic facia, all on premises at a high rental, arid who then crowds his windows with an uninformative collection of productions, leaving it to the passer-by to wonder what it is all about.
We called our Editorial on this subject "Wasted Opportunities at Show-time," and we took the opportunity to discuss the matter with a number of prominent men in the industry. We think we may fairly take credit for the distinct improvement which was evident in respect of the quality of the showmanship at Olympia last week. Of the results of the Show we have something to say elsewhere in this issue. We can record that the efforts made by, at any rate, the majority of the exhibitors intelligently to attract the attention of visitors—most of whom, be it remembered, were there for a definite purpose—were commendable. Quite a number of open lorries was exhibited with loads, and this in spite of the fact that there were quite good-humoured comments as to the reason why such gratuitous advertisements should be given to Tipton's tea or Robinson's Yellow Whisky.
Loaded Lorries as Exhibits.
The point is, however, that the opportunity was not neglect.ed to show these machines more or less in working garb, and it is a certainty that such methods form in themselves a most useful demonstration, and one of which those for whom such display is made are little aware—for that reason it is more valuable. It is an insidious method of securing attention.
Perhaps the Daimler Co. again should be awarded the palm for excellence of such showmanship. We seem to remember that there is some regulation in respect of these Shows which precludes the exhibition of second-hand machines. Whether the Lovell and Christmas stripped chassis, with its marvellous revelation of the paucity of wear on a high-grade chassis after long mileage, comes within that category, we hardly care to offer an opinion. It certainly . looked second-hand to us! But, of course, the value of the whole scheme was the form of object-lesson which was afforded_ It was obviously not the intention of the makers to sell a second-hand chassis, and that is the excuse for its inclusion. Other apparent technical breaches of this regulation were evident in the displays of long-mileage, second-hand tires in the gallery ; but, of course, the Society has no intention of barring such displays. We mention this at some length, as we have had not a little criticism on this Point brought to our notice.
The Daimler Maypole.
The Daimler method of indicating outstanding features of constructional interest by an illuminated display signboard and multi-coloured ribbons leading therefrom to the various parts served its purpose admirably, although, perhaps, the lettering was too small, and the board was too high to catch all eyes.
There was a commendable display of chassis construction. We only have in mind one prominent maker who neglected to demonstrate his constructional features in this obvious manner, and we think we are right in saying that this policy was attended by diminished interest in that respect on the part, of visitors. From the point of view of the dissemination of general ideas of design, it was good for the industry that each maker should be in a position freely to inspect what his neighbour was making. For five years past the designing staffs of many fae rr6 tories have been comparatively in the dark as to the chassis from rival works. We ourselves have been not a little astonished to come across instances of well-known makers' comparative ignorance of the structural details of their competitors' machines.
Trying to Stage Too Much.
On the whole, there was little crowding on the stands, although there were instances where far too much was attempted in respect of the display of a complete range of models. There were two outstanding cases of big stands overcrowded, whereon it was practically impossible to get round the machineS for the purpose of adequate inspection. It is better showmanship properly to display one or two represeRtatire examples than to crowd a stand with one of each of a long list of models. There were certain outstanding differences between a display of the kind which many of us witnessed last week and that which was seen at the pleasure-car exhibition. The absence of feminine interest is not the least noteworthy characteristic of a commercialvehicle show. That this facilitated the tasks of at least the younger members of the staffs on the stands goes without saying?
No Changes for the Sake of Change.
There is little need for novelty, in order to attract the attention of visitors to such a show as that of .last week. A big gate, of course, was not desired. Manufacturers did not find it necessary to adopt structural alterations in order to achieve novelty. If a chassis _ is modified, it is for a very good purpose, which, in nine cases out of ten, has been decided upon as the result of hard-service experience. We are probably correct in saying that fashion has very little to do with the design of the commercial vehicle. That circumstance, and the fact that most of the big makers are as yet only commencing to consider the structural practice of their rivals, is responsible for the obvious diversity in builders' methods, all of them faced, it is true, with similar problems. That the next show, whenever it may be, will see less diversity, is certain. Already we are commencing to note the standardizing effect, for instance, of successful motorbus operation, and of the practical nature of the design of one outstanding class of steam wagon.
Since 1908.
It would not serve much useful purpose for us to attempt careful comparisons between this show, as a show, and the last one of any moment, which was held
in the Metropolis—that of 1908. Glancing at the list of exhibitors, however, on that occasion, it is interesting to note that, of those makers who staged machines in March, 1908, the following were not represented last week : Burrell; Clarkson ; CritchleyN-orris ; Darracq-Serpollet ; Foster ; Fowler; Mann ; D. Stewart ; Barford and Perkins ; Greenwood and Batley; Electric Vehicle CO. ; Armstrong-Whitworth ; Atkey ; Darracq ; Darwen ; Callinari ; Humber; Hutton ; Industrial Motor ; Lacre ; Arrol-Johnston ; Ilyk
Meld ; Sturmey ; Thames ; Royal ; Bentall; Clift Gaggenau ; Honey; Simms ; and West. Perhaps we may leave this present article concerning the Show with this remarkable list of absentees. Of the newcomers, and vigorous ones they are on the whole, there is no need to include a list on the Present occasion. A comparison between the shows on this basis is perhaps the best way in which to realize what a remarkable revolution this great industry has expwienced since 1908.