Marvin,

Though Mike lacks punctuation and syntax, I see no fault in his logic regarding Rob Anthony's participation.

As a promoter in a different field for the last 13 years, I feel I have a very strong grasp on vendor relations and the financial dynamic involved with a professional level show.

When a service oriented vendor participates in a show, they create value for the attendees and the event. When that vendor begins to charge for the services, the value to the show promoter and subsequently, the attendees, is reduced. This vendor should be paying for space. However, that vendors rate for participation is still lower than those simply merchandising goods, as the value to the attendees/community is maintained.

When that vendor begins selling merchandise, the service offered, which originally brought value to the show, is now re-directed toward personal marketability and financial gain. In this case, the vendor should be paying the same rate for participation as all others.

Given this, the request for free space, hotel room, and preferential treatment is unreasonable... as a promoter, this level of inequity cannot exist or you will alienate loyal, fully paid participants.

I don't know either Mike or Rob Anthony well, am not privy to their conversations, or interested in airing their business here, but in my opinion, the requested relationship, as proposed in the above dialogue, is not sustainable in a professional show environment.

Mike's decision is not twisted, it's just transparent, equitable decision making for a sustainable business model.