I wish to raise a point that may challenge an unspoken industry convention, but it’s a conversation worth having.

Over recent years, we’ve progressively withdrawn from a number of aesthetic exhibitions. While I won’t name specific events, I will say that this has had no adverse impact on our business—in fact, sales continue to grow. Our decision to pull out stems from a recurring pattern we’ve observed across the board.

Many of the delegates we engage with—whether at the booth, during breaks, or at social gatherings—repeatedly express fatigue. They’re worn down by company-led presentations disguised as keynote sessions, with too much overt promotion and too little authentic education. The result? A decline in real engagement and diminishing ROI for exhibitors.

This in turn makes exhibition stands harder to justify commercially. Costs continue to rise, not fall. As major brands reduce their footprint or withdraw entirely, organisers face shortfalls, leading to further cost-cutting—which ironically makes the events even less attractive and less valuable for delegates and exhibitors alike. It becomes a vicious cycle.

Consider the optics: exhibitors, who fund these events, are often served basic supermarket sandwiches, while delegates receive premium catering—sometimes even at additional cost to the exhibitor. In another instance, lunch for exhibitors was an extra line item on top of already significant stand fees. It’s indicative of where priorities lie.

Another core issue is the over-reliance on paid influencers presented as ‘Key Opinion Leaders’ (KOLs). Many so-called KOLs today are simply brand ambassadors with limited independent authority or clinical distinction. Organisers increasingly favour these speakers because their sponsor companies pay for their inclusion on the agenda. By contrast, genuine experts—those with decades of practical experience and academic authority—are often sidelined because they command a fee rather than pay one.

This is not sustainable.

We choose to support individuals like Professor Tony Chu, a true KOL in every sense. He’s a leading authority on acne and rosacea, with decades of clinical and academic experience. When he speaks—on scar mastery, or on setting up accredited acne and rosacea treatment centres through his national charity—he delivers real, broad-spectrum knowledge, not branded content. His sessions are Level 7 CPD accredited by a University Hospital and cover treatments beyond any one company’s portfolio. We support him because his education is genuinely useful, respected, and impactful.

Unfortunately, this approach seems to be increasingly rare. At many upcoming events, I expect to hear familiar refrains from delegates: “There was nothing new,” or “Every session felt like a sponsored infomercial.” That’s not what these conferences were meant to be.

Perhaps it’s time to be honest about what works. Instead of spending £20,000+ on a stand (not to mention travel, accommodation, and logistics), why not offer practitioners direct access to meaningful content? For example, imagine a Zoom session with Professor Chu or myself—30 minutes of valuable, independent clinical insight—combined with a £250 incentive (in stock, vouchers, or otherwise). We could easily attract and engage 100–200 genuinely interested practitioners, and deliver far more value than a footfall-counted conversation at a stand.

In short, we must rethink what industry events are for—education, innovation, connection—and how best to deliver on that promise. If we continue down the current path of pay-to-present influencer sessions, we risk undermining the integrity and long-term viability of these events for everyone involved.

Rant over—but the message stands.