Thoughts for Black Hat Europe – is it time to reframe industry expos?

Fresh from Black Hat Europe last week, I thought I would give my take on the show and how vendors should approach exhibiting there.

Black Hat is one of the staples in the event calendar for cybersecurity companies, but I think it’s really best for early stage and rising star vendors who want to build their credibility with the technical practitioners in the industry. There are three stand-out reasons for this:

• A more level playing field: Stands are of a similar size so you do not get the same scale of arms race to have the biggest presence possible that you do at some other shows. This allows up-and-coming vendors to sit alongside established brands without going bankrupt.
• Less noise: With just over 70 stands, it is a smaller event than some of the other trade shows. While it also has fewer people in attendance, you also have fewer competitors and less noise. This can work in your favour depending on how you approach the event.
• A technical audience: Black Hat attracts a more technically savvy crowd that values hands-on experiences. From the Arsenal solutions showcase to practical training sessions, these attendees want to discover what’s new, get their hands dirty, and share their findings with peers. I think this has advantages for new up-and-coming companies, those early-stage start-ups and ones that have had some more funding but still early in their journey.

Remember that even though the c-suite is less present at Black Hat, security practitioners have growing importance in the sales journey. There has been an explosion in vendors – so much so that it is impossible for CISOs and senior leaders to evaluate tools themselves. This job is increasingly being delegated to the whole security team. So, make sure that you go to Black Hat with a message aligned with this audience.

But are trade shows worth it?

Over the past couple of years, I have struggled to find many marketers who are positive about trade shows and whether they are worth the money. I tend to get two types of response when I ask about their value:

• Reluctant obligation: A belief that they must be there from a brand perspective, that security leaders expect to see them, and it is a mark of credibility.
• ROI does not stack up: Thinking that there is more value from organising smaller more intimate gatherings with security decision makers, rather than going for the big set piece trade shows.

Both perspectives stem from the pressure marketers face to prove ROI on every initiative. With restricted budgets, committing to a trade show is risky. Events require time, effort, and collaboration across multiple teams. Yet, expos rarely deliver the immediate, attributable pipeline that marketing leaders are expected to produce. This leaves marketing teams exposed and open to criticism if they commit to trade shows.

However, I think the real advantage of trade shows has more to do with brand building and ‘brand experiences’ for potential customers, rather than lead generation. Think of retail sales as a model. Physical shops are no longer a place just to buy stuff but are the centre for how customers interact with brands and have a direct experience of that brand. Cybersecurity marketing leaders should take a similar approach as they plan out their trade show calendars. What experience of your brand do you want prospects to come away with after meeting with you at a trade show?

A further consideration is that all vendors’ marketing must build trust with their potential customers. Having a presence at the set-piece events like InfoSec, Black Hat, and RSA is an important signal to the market that you are an established vendor that can be trusted.

By reframing industry expos in this light, marketing heads can benefit from a unique branding opportunity and frame expo attendance as part of the long game plan.