What Are We Really Showing?
Exploring the purpose, price and potential of the optical trade show.
We love the spectacle; the energy, the design, the sense of belonging when the industry comes together. And yet, alongside that admiration sits some tough questions: in a changing world, what are we really showing - and to whom?
This series takes an independent, future-focused look at the experience from all sides; exhibitors, visitors and organisers alike. It’s written from a place of respect for what works, and curiosity about what could work better.
Because the best parts of our industry deserve to evolve, not erode.
A note before we begin this exploration.
Eye Style has always been about seeing connections that can often be overlooked. The optical industry is one giant bubble, but it also operates in silos. I’m not here to pick sides or cheer for one camp over another; independent versus multiple, big versus small, tradition versus innovation. I’m here to connect the dots between them.
I’m independent of affiliation and that lets me question what’s become too familiar, challenge the comfortable narratives, and explore ideas without the usual filters. The aim isn’t to criticise; it’s to illuminate - to understand where the system works, where it doesn’t, and how we can collectively make it stronger.
This next series moves from commentary to connection.
It’s fundamentally about about finding the actions that create real progress; better relationships between suppliers and practices, more purposeful partnerships, and a healthier, more sustainable optical ecosystem overall.
Because when the dots join up, everyone rises.
Now, back to the journal…
Why Write This Now?
Because the debate has spilled beyond private conversations. Over the past few months, optical forums and social feeds have been alive with the same questions:
Should we still attend? Should we exhibit? What’s the real return?
The Curated Optics essay on luxury and trade shows reignited scepticism about value versus vanity, while SILMO’s momentum reminded us that, done right, shows can still generate genuine excitement, and business.
This series will look at trade shows through three lenses (pun absolutely intended): the exhibitor, the visitor, and the organiser, and ask what each truly gains. It’s not about praise or blame; it’s about clarity. Because progress only happens when all three perspectives intersect.
Right now, those conversations exist in silos:
Exhibitors talk about footfall and stand cost, not consumer follow-through.
Visitors trade anecdotes about freebies and fatigue, not measurable outcomes.
Organisers speak the language of numbers (attendance, square metres) but rarely of meaning.
Bridging those gaps matters. We need to understand:
What percentage of ‘show leads’ convert to orders, and how does that compare to digital channels?
How much of the show spend goes on aesthetics versus analytics?
What defines success: reach, resonance, or revenue?
Are sustainability claims reflected in the materials, freight choices, and stand designs we see?
And crucially: are we still designing these events for how the industry worked, or for how it works now?
In a world recalibrating after COVID and Brexit, where borders, costs and customer expectations have all shifted, the optical trade show can either be a legacy format, or a live laboratory for reinvention.
The goal of this series is simple: to ask better questions so we can build better shows.
Because only when we connect the dots; across perspectives, geographies and generations, do we create an industry that moves forward together.
The Overview: Connecting the Dots
Trade shows have long been the heartbeat and highlight of the optical calendar; part spectacle, part social ritual, part business accelerator. But that rhythm is changing.
After years of pandemic pauses, Brexit bureaucracy, rising travel and freight costs, and a global audience now used to digital connection, the industry stands at an inflection point. The question isn’t whether trade shows should exist (they absolutely should), it’s how they could evolve to remain worth the investment.
Mixed Signals: The Paradox of the Show Floor
On the surface, the trade show circuit looks buoyant again. Attendance is on the rise, brands are travelling and on the whole, the aisles feel alive. Beneath the gloss sits a slightly more complicated reality however, one of recovery and recalibration happening at the same time. The numbers tell one story, the sentiment on the ground often tells another.
Optimism in Attendance.
SILMO 2024 drew strong attendance and a renewed sense of optimism, and in 2025 reported a 6.5% increase in visitors (33,358 in total) with 52% of those arriving from outside France - evidence that appetite for in-person connection remains strong.
MIDO’s visitor numbers are creeping back towards pre-COVID levels. In 2025 more than 42,000 visitors attended, a 9% growth on the previous year.
100% Optical has grown steadily from around 9,000 visitors pre-covid to just over 11,000 in 2024 and 2025 and holding steady.
Opti Munich has rebuilt from a 13,000 visitor restart in 2022 to just over 21,000 in 2024 and 2025. Still shy of it’s 2019 peak (27-28,000) but certainly back in the major show territory.1
In other words, the top tier is recovering in volume, but from very different starting points and with slightly different shapes to the curve.
The Cost of Being Seen (Exhibitor View)
Behind every stand lies a spreadsheet. For a mid-sized independent brand, a major European show still means £25–40k in total investment once space, design, freight, staff and travel are counted. MIDO lists stand rents of €3–4k for 9m² shells, but many brands spend €20–50 k for impactful builds; SILMO and opti quote similar ranges. At London’s 100% Optical, a 9m² space can easily reach £10k once fully fitted.
As exhibitor numbers remain strong, and floorspace is largely consistent, what is changing, anecdotally at least, is how brands choose to show up: Some brands are choosing smaller, design-driven stands, co-shared storytelling spaces, or digital integrations over the traditional sprawling builds. Is this all about saving money or does this combine with a shift in strategy? Impact over area, narrative over noise?
For many brands, these events have become as much about visibility and relationships as immediate sales. And as many exhibitors note, presence still matters. To be seen among the global names is to signal credibility; to miss a show is to invite questions about momentum. The game has changed, but the stakes remain high and for exhibitors it’s a fine balancing act between visibility, brand perception and return on investment.
ROI Moving Downstream.
Many exhibitors report strong traffic but softer conversions.
Footfall doesn’t always equal follow-through. Smaller independents especially note that while visibility feels good, post-show orders don’t always justify the spend. So behind the headline visitor growth sits a quieter economic reality.
A consistent theme has emerged: the return on investment hasn’t disappeared, but it’s shifting further down the sales cycle.
According to The Optical Journal (May 2024), many independent eyewear brands report their exhibiting budgets have risen by around 20 percent compared with 2019, driven by increases in freight, accommodation and energy costs since both Brexit and COVID.
At the same time, shorter buying cycles and the dominance of in-season digital ordering mean fewer purchase commitments are made at the stand itself.
An OMD 2023 supplier survey found that 60–70 percent of orders now happen after the event, confirming that trade shows increasingly function as brand-building and relationship-renewal platforms rather than direct sales floors.
The impact? Shows still matter; but for visibility, storytelling and relationship equity, not always immediate revenue. The return is simply arriving later.2
Larger brands still view these events as brand-equity builders rather than immediate sales drivers; a distinction that’s widening the gap between those who can afford to show up and those who can’t.
The Visitor: Between Inspiration and Fatigue
For visitors, trade shows hover on the line between pilgrimage and performance. There’s still the thrill of discovery; walking through vast halls alive with colour, design and possibility, yet this excitement increasingly comes with a side-order of weariness. Many attendees describe the major optical events as sprawling, with familiar conversations and visual cues repeating over time.
At the same time, the very best editions of these shows reignite something fundamental: sharper ideas, fresh connections, and a renewed sense of belonging in an otherwise fragmented industry. Visitor-surveys continue to report high satisfaction rates and a strong desire for discovery - for example, one show reported a 93% visitor satisfaction mark with “discovering new trends” named the top reason to attend.3
Behaviour is changing. Organisers report a rise in pre-booked meetings and shorter visit durations. Is this a sign that visitors are travelling with intent rather than curiosity alone? Or a way for brands to justify attendance and (in the main) secure sale certainty in advance? Meanwhile, the experience is being compared to adjacent sectors (fashion, design, technology), where storytelling and immersion are more deeply embedded. If those industries can deliver creative theatre and emotional resonance, the expectation now is: why can’t optical follow suit?
The Organiser: The Balancing Act
If exhibitors are counting every square metre and visitors every minute, organisers are balancing both; while juggling rising costs, sustainability targets and the impossible expectation to make the experience both spectacular and responsible.
SILMO Paris now works with sustainability consultancy RE-SET to track carbon impact and promote modular stand reuse through its SILMO Next hub. MIDO Milan runs its Sustainability Path and Certified Sustainable Eyewear awards, reporting that 95 percent of organiser-built materials are reusable and that all lighting and ticketing are now LED and digital. opti Munich hosts pre-planning roundtables with exhibitors, visitors and industry representatives, and recently introduced a Sustainability Award for eco-friendly booths. 100% Optical is certified as a carbon-neutral event through ExCeL London’s Net Zero 2030 programme, although I was unable to find direct discussion of sustainability efforts beyond those of the individual exhibitor and stand builder pages.4
Yet running a trade show has never been more expensive. Across Europe, venue, energy and logistics costs have risen 15–20 percent since 2022, while exhibitors ask for more content and lower fees. Organisers have responded by broadening the offer rather than the floor: more seminars, education zones and digital extensions designed to stretch value beyond the three-day window. It’s a quiet but significant shift, from measuring success in square metres to measuring it in meaning.
So why keep doing it? Because when it works, it works.
Industry benchmarks suggest trade-show organisers still achieve operating margins of around 25–30%, sustained by diversified income (space rental, sponsorships, digital media) and high exhibitor retention. The biggest events also deliver something more abstract but equally valuable: influence. They shape narratives, drive tourism, and underpin billions in local economic impact.
The effort may be gargantuan, but so can be the reward; not only in profit, but in power, profile and the ability to set the rhythm for an entire industry.
Connecting the Dots Again.
We’ve mapped the terrain; the recovery, the recalibration, the resilience.
But beneath the numbers and narratives sits a question that matters more than any metric: what are we really showing?
Trade shows still represent the heartbeat of this industry, and perhaps its conscience too. They reflect our priorities back at us. When exhibitors double down on spectacle, when visitors seek substance, when organisers chase both, the gaps between intention and impact can start to show.
This isn’t about declaring what’s right or wrong. It’s about asking whether the format still matches the future we keep saying we want.
Why discuss this now? Because we’re at a rare inflection point. Costs are climbing, attention is fragmenting, and environmental pressure is only intensifying. The same event model that built connection and community could in time, without re-examination, start to erode it.
And there are real questions to answer (or at the very least attempt to)
How can shows remain commercially viable without pricing out independents?
What does ‘sustainability’ really mean?
Can organisers curate discovery rather than simply host it?
And what happens if the people who most need visibility can no longer afford to be seen?
The challenge is no longer simply to attend, but to engage.
In a world of shorter attention spans and longer flights, the shows that respect time, and deliver meaning, will win.
This series begins there: with the people behind the stands, the budgets, and the belief that showing up still matters. We start with the exhibitor story.
Next: Part Two - The Cost of Being Seen.
How much does visibility really cost, and who’s paying the true price for it?
If you’ve made it this far, thank you. I won’t get everything right (who does?), but if this sparks a few good conversations, a new connection, or even a rethink of how we show up as an industry, then my job is done. I don’t pretend to have all the answers, just a head full of questions and a hope that asking them out loud might shift something.
You can subscribe below to follow the rest of the series, and as always please share with the person you think needs to see this most.
Data drawn from:
100% Optical visitor reports and show summaries - Association of Optometrists (AOP 2024 & 2025)
100% Optical exhibitor guide - Exhibit Interactive (2025)
opti Munich 2025 coverage - Vision Monday and Optical Journal
opti Munich historic data - opti Messe (DE Wikipedia)
Solid data from the current year seems to emerge later, so for any more recent change factors omitted, I apologise. Also, if anyone is collating these numbers following a show and forming some sort of benchmark system I’d love to know!
More later on how gated stands might be the enemy of discovery.
That doesn’t mean they don’t exist, it just means they may not be clearly signposted on the website. I am unsure what information is given or actions recommended when an exhibitor books their space regards sustainability.