I was recently working on an event at an expo and cabling up my lights when the guy installing the electrical power distribution asked if I had installed a lead myself “because I need to charge for it”. I explained that all I had done was move the lead from where they had installed it (in the middle of the stand) to where I needed it.

Then this week I saw an invoice for the installation of such a service: 

• 10amp GPO: $172.00
• Damage Waiver: $16.34
• Delivery: $87.50
• Collection: $87.50
• Admin Fee: $4.30
• GST: $36.76
• Total: $404.40

This situation highlights a significant problem. Major contractors appear to exploit their position, varying their charges based on the client and the show. For instance, how do you justify charging a $87.50 delivery fee for a simple electrical cord when it is already on site, plus an equal amount for its collection.

Typically, the $172 hire charge would include the cost of the consumption, which isn’t passed on by the venue. Additionally, the $16.34 damage waiver seems unjustified for a cord running down a wall, and the $4.30 administration fee feels like an unnecessary add-on for a company that holds an exclusive agreement and is already processing orders.

And no – you cannot bring your own electrician and leads in.

Remember when venues used to charge over $1,000 to provide an Ethernet connection to your stand – now everyone expects the venue to provide decent wi-fi at a reasonable price. So why are other services not charged at a reasonable rate as well.

Interestingly, I’ve also heard about the recent entry of a new expo transport provider that has immediately led to more competitive pricing. Meanwhile, the incumbent freight forwarder, previously unchallenged, has suddenly dropped prices and improved services. My understanding is they have dropped 15% off their current pricing for an upcoming event.

This change underscores the impact of competition in the market when some contractors can all of a sudden dramatically drop their prices due to shows shrinking or falling over.

The critical question remains: who is monitoring and addressing these issues? What will it take for the industry to wake up to the potential consequences of media exposure as a headline on Current Affair or a Consumer Affairs investigation?

As the industry stands at this crossroads, should the new national association look into pricing? Or should suppliers just charge what they can get away with?