Lanyard and programme in hand, I'm through to the exhibition floor and free to roam. There is a maze of stalls ahead: they're encased in a (gimmicky) theme – there's a high top circus tent, bunting, a woman on stilts – it's a curious scene. I consult the floor plan. Outlined are a methodical grid of stalls, seminar spaces, and designated coffee and networking points. The channels start to busy up. The ringmaster begins his announcements, bellowing: “Browse the stands, full of technological wonders and delights. The opening talk will begin in 30 minutes in the big top, at the other side of the hall”. I wander through this winding tradescape. There is a palpable momentum in the hum of hopeful conversation. The atmosphere is “electric”, “buzzing”, like the “micro drone” being demonstrated one stand over. A passer-by watching the display quips, “Let's hope that sucker doesn't hit us now”, and laughs. Stands are adorned with application information, prototype platforms and sensors. This space is a hive of commercial and civilian drone activity; the underbelly of the burgeoning opportunity-scape of the reimagined and rebranded “good drone”. Within the maze of stalls are several designated seminar spaces, open-air but cordoned off. Parallel sessions run almost continuously throughout the day. Presentations range from pitches for a “brand new” or “game-changing” capability or operation, to tackling key topics on the commercial drone agenda. In a session exploring “payloads of the future” I jot down a speaker's remark: “technology always wins”. Inevitability?, I scribble. I regroup over coffee, leafing through the trade magazines amassed. An advertisement reads, “Unmanned. Unlimited”. I dog-ear the page. Back again tomorrow.

– Excerpt from author's fieldwork diary

The brief vignette that opens this paper is an excerpt from a fieldwork diary kept at an industry event, “The Commercial UAV Show” (CUS), held in London, UK, in October 2014.

Building upon this, and supplementing it with fieldwork experience at several additional commercial drone trade shows, in what follows this paper first introduces the site of the trade show, asserting its importance as a space through which to aid emergent explorations of the commercial drone.

The trade shows attended and discussed in this piece are The Commercial UAV Show 2014, Sky Tech 2015, and The Commercial UAV Show 2015, each held in London, UK, between October 2014 and October 2015. Each event attracted from 1000 to 2350 attendees, and showcased from 60 to 85 exhibitors (Coverdrone 2015; CUS 2015a, b). These events form part of a wider global event landscape, in which a growing number of trade events centred on the commercial drone are emerging. Events of different scales, but boasting similar exhibitor and seminar profiles, have taken place across numerous countries globally, with many more booked ahead (see http://Dronesdrones.com event calendar).

Trade events, exhibitions and “expos” are gatherings of industry partners, including manufacturers and service-providers, as well as representatives from the wider drone community, such as regulators and policy-makers, trade associations, advocacy groups, universities and end users. Such sites of “copresence” and “transfer” (McCann, 2011) are publicly positioned as spaces in which to “establish partnerships, deliver knowledge transfer and encourage growth within the UAV industry” (SkyTech, 2015a). These events can thus be understood as “soapbox” spaces or forums for the “key actors” in the industry, seeking to “define, understand and ultimately integrate UAVs into the commercial sector” (SkyTech, 2015b). As such, these spaces encompass a range of rhetorical framings through which various parties seek to understand, reimagine and rebrand the commercial drone. The trade show could thus be considered akin to a barometer, reflecting the (changing) industry mood around particular topics, debates and rebuttals on the commercial drone agenda.

As a notable site of congregation for the commercial drone advocacy community, trade shows act as a valuable space or window of access into this emergent tradescape and the questions that accompany the (often hidden) activities involved in the “making of the drone” (Klauser and Pedrozo, 2015) more widely. As such, a reflection upon trade-show framings, atmospheres, encounters and materials collected contributes to the wider project of a critical exploration of the industries, institutions and discourses of reimagining and rebranding that enable the functioning and proliferation of drones in commercial and civilian settings.

Whilst trade shows are a valuable lens through which to reflect upon the commercial drone, the wider tradescape is of course comprised of a series of sites and networks. Explorations of the research and development (R&D), manufacture process, funding and other aspects of the commercial drone's political economy (akin to Hall and Coyne, 2014, on the political economy of military drones) would valuably complement this investigation (on this, see Crampton, 2015, on emergent commercial drone economies).

In addition to acting as a window into the wider commercial drone tradescape, trade shows are also significant in that they provide an opportunity or site to consider the drone anew. Rather than reflecting upon the drone “in theatre” or in action – as it collects aerial imagery, senses, and navigates the air – as it performs, the drone can instead be considered prior to its end-point. This reframing is not to discredit the valuable and fruitful reflections regarding the (implications of the) “functioning of the drone” (Klauser and Pedrozo, 2015), but to supplement these by critically attending to earlier, formative and distinct stages of the drone's life course. In so doing, this paper seeks to reflect upon the spaces in and rhetorical framings through which the commercial drone is narrated and made possible: the commercial drone tradescape.

Whilst the trade show encompasses a variety of competing narratives, discussions of the commercial drone were predominantly framed in terms of risks or opportunities.

In exploring the narratives and discursive imaginings of the commercial drone in the tradescape, this paper acknowledges the “vested interests” (Kinsley, 2012:1565) in the (drone) technology, in this particular context, by particular actors (see Dissent, 2014).

The first lens through which the commercial drone was recurrently rhetorically framed at the trade show was as an inevitable technological tool. Following on from the “welcome to the future” banner adorning the event programme (CUS, 2014a), the drone was described as the “aerial apex”, which will “become an invaluable tool”, the “clear” or “obvious” choice for a plethora of solutions, and as “the natural evolution of aerial technology” throughout the trade shows (CUS, 2014b; SkyTech, 2015c). Such labels reflected a persistent and insistent framing of the drone as inevitable: an unrelenting force of possibilities, which any regulatory tide cannot and ultimately will not quell. At times the drone was heralded as a kind of super-tool, boundlessly altering the reaches and realms of the possible. This was exacerbated by a number of speakers repeatedly stating that despite “regulatory barriers” or “hesitancy”, “the technology always wins in the end” (CUS, 2014b; SkyTech, 2015c).

Together such sentiments can be understood as reflecting a particular future “orientation” towards the unfolding path of the drone (Anderson and Adey, 2012; Kinsley, 2012; McCormack, 2012). This inflection of futurity can be considered alongside the work of geographers who have considered how “specific futures [are] made present”, “embodied, experienced, told, narrated, imagined, performed, wished, planned, (day)dreamed, symbolised, [and] sensed” (Anderson and Adey, 2012:1529, 1533; Kinsley, 2012; McCormack, 2012). Such work seeks to attend to the “measures, registers, apprehensions, engagements and movements that appear to be important for understanding the unfolding of … events” (Merriman, 2012, in Anderson and Adey, 2012:1530). The trade show can be understood as an event in which understandings of commercial drones are apprehended, framed and circulated through a series of rhetoric and affective mechanisms. These framings, including that of the drone as inevitable, can be considered precisely as these “engagements” significant in understanding the “imagined futures” (Anderson, 2010) at play in the unfolding of the technology's path.

In a paper exploring ubiquitous computing, Kinsley (2012:1554) unpacks “how particular visions of … future technology use are constituted”. Drawing upon such an approach, this paper considers the rhetorical framings through which the commercial drone is envisioned at the trade show, and the role and relation of futurity in such envisionings. For example, accompanying the aforementioned heavy-handed, deterministic and somewhat dogmatic sentiments about technological inevitability, speakers and participants frequently used analogy in order to situate, foster familiarity and communicate the utility of the “changing tide, or should we say skies, that the drones bring” (CUS, 2014b). Here, organizations utilizing or advocating drones frequently drew comparisons with the mobile phone, asserting “as people become more aware of the benefits, they're less worried about someone watching them … It's like locational tracking on the cell [mobile] phone, versus the value of having the cell phone” (CUS, 2014b). As Rothstein (2015) notes, drawing upon analogous technologies to make the drone more palatable or familiar is also commonplace across wider discussions of the technology. In unpacking the recurrent utilization of four technologies as analogical devices frequently drawn upon in drone discussions (the automobile, aircraft, computer and robot), Rothstein (2015:1) describes the careful reduction of history to a “single story”. This carefully crafted “reduction” was not only evident but rampant across the tradescape, where the nuances and complexities associated with the (airspace) integration of the commercial drone were often brushed over and rearticulated in relation to established and familiar technologies, responses and refrains. In drawing upon ubiquitous and mainstay devices, various advocates sought to “naturalize” the drone, framing it as “not a totally radical departure, but an infrastructural evolution” of technologies before it (CUS, 2014b). By employing analogy, advocates rhetorically conceded that whilst no technology is risk-free, any such (alleged) risk is outweighed by the “almost unimaginable benefits” (CUS, 2015c) that the drone may yield, demonstrating the risk–reward compromise accompanying many technologies. The positioning of the drone as inevitable was often accompanied with a further rhetorical framing of the drone as a device altering the very possible.

The second lens through which the commercial drone was recurrently rhetorically framed at the trade show was that of possibility. The question of possibility first emerged in the pitching of the trade show as a space in which to explore and “demonstrate the endless possibilities and advantages that UAVs can offer the commercial sector” (CUS, 2014b). The focus on the commercial “drone-possible” then persisted in the event welcome address, with one speaker praising the event's approach to “infinite [drone] possibility”, boldly asserting that the commercial drone industry was currently “only scratching the surface of the possible” (CUS, 2014b).

As the event continued, case studies of numerous small commercial and “civilian” drone applications – both operational, trialled, under development and envisioned – were showcased. Such envisionings utilized particular “techniques of imagination” (Kinsley, 2012:1559), drawing upon a sense of the possible as that of an unlimited space of uses not yet recognized, in order to frame the drone. Like other emergent technologies, these framings were often “animated by the circulation of hopes in and for possible or potential future benefits” (Anderson, 2007:157). In so doing, the showcased drone was framed to be understood in terms of its potentiality and promise – as an “invaluable tool” (SkyTech, 2015c) which facilitates both that which “was not possible before” and that which “we never thought possible” (CUS, 2014b; SkyTech, 2015c). This sentiment was reflected in the drone being frequently designated as the “disruptive technology of the moment” (CUS, 2014b), altering the realms and reaches of the possible. Such bold statements and visions were accompanied with a series of romanticized idioms, from “the sky's the limit”, “if you can imagine it, it's possible”, “[drones] give you a new perspective”, “nothing's impossible”, to “the best possible awaits” (CUS, 2014b). Akin to the previous framing of the drone as inevitable, the drone as possible also encompassed a form of futurity, with such visions and techno-“orientations” being framed in terms of (future) expectation and promise (Anderson, 2007; McCormack, 2012).

Accompanying these boundless and frontierless imaginations and envisionings of the drone possible, however, was a distinct narrative around what might limit or constrain the quelling of the “drone-possible”. The “drone-possible” would, according to numerous speakers, be limited and undermined by both the “stilted” regulatory landscape and the ill-conceived actions of so-called “rogue actors” (CUS, 2015c; SkyTech, 2015c). The frustration around various unfolding regulatory landscapes was encapsulated in the recurrent refrain that “regulations will defeat possibilities” (CUS, 2014b), which was uttered three times in a single presentation by an advocacy group. The quelling of the possible was also attributed to irresponsible and “unscrupulous actions of some [users which] will spoil the vast opportunities for others” (CUS, 2014b). This stance was concretized in the mantra that circulated amongst industry and advocacy representatives that “the technology's not the problem – it can be misused, it's the person's intention” (CUS, 2014b).

In response to such sentiments, industry, regulatory and advocacy representatives proposed both (voluntary self-)regulation and public education. Representatives stressed the importance of adopting and publicizing the “necessary safety precautions” (CUS, 2014b). In addition to supporting efforts to highlight existing regulation, advocates promoted and shared particular avenues of guidance and self-regulation in order “to avoid the incident that ruins it for everyone else” (CUS, 2015c). When pressed in questions about unsafe operation or misuse, speakers often reframed the conversation to emphasize the importance of instead addressing the public perception of drones. In so doing, advocates illustrated their focus on “win[ning] the public over” by “demystify[ing] the landscape” and “addressing the[ir] misconceptions” (CUS, 2014b). This refrain of demystification or “drone destigmatization” (CIC, 2012) was stressed by various event participants and attendees, from advocacy groups to end-user organizations. It seemingly centred around stressing that “this is not a risky technology anymore, [but] a proven technology” (CUS, 2014b). As such, users and manufacturers were encouraged to “sell the value of UAVs and concentrate on good news stories” (CUS, 2014b), in order to allow the “drone-possible” to be unlocked.

As intimated in the opening vignette, The Commercial UAV Show 2014 was encased in a circus theme. Entering the maze of stalls and being greeted by a costumed ringmaster

To see high-quality photographic event coverage, see Totally Unmanned (2014).

The most important thing is to focus on what's below the drone – commercial viability dictates all” (CUS, 2014).

Together the trade-show framings of the commercial drone, in terms of inevitability and possibility, may be understood as united by an undercurrent of techno-fetishism. The tendency to fetishize the military drone has been explored by Shaw (2011:8), who, drawing upon Marx, demonstrates the presentation of the military drone as “devoid of social relations”, which are instead “mystified and masked” (see also Shaw and Akhter, 2012). In so doing, it is argued that the military drone is “present[ed] … as an autonomous agent, isolated from the imperial and military apparatus behind it” (Shaw and Akhter, 2012:1501). This approach to understanding the “fetishized” and “masked” drone may arguably also be applied to the commercial drone, which is, at the trade show, often presented and heralded as a technological solution bar none in lieu of sustained critical interrogation of the concerns associated with such aerial integration. Similarly, scope remains to further interrogate the unfolding of the narratives and imaginations of the commercial drone within and beyond the trade show. As such trade events have both a notable press and social media presence, an exploration of both the distilling and creation, and the circulation and amplification of such sound bites, slogans and buzzwords may also prove fruitful in supplementing critical explorations of the commercial drone more widely.

We're looking at the future … And whether we like it or not, the future is looking back at us” (Morley Safer in CBS News, 2014).

This paper has sought to assert the trade show as both a valuable site and lens through which to explore the commercial drone tradescape, and to attend to the drone at an earlier stage in its life course, one that arguably fuels the proliferation of its end-point applications and operations. In so doing, it has offered a brief reflection upon the framing of the commercial drone in the trade-show environment. By introducing two rhetorical framings through which the drone is recurrently portrayed and understood in these environments, those of inevitability and possibility, it has sought to reflect upon the modes of “practices, representations, and expertise” (McCann, 2011:120) through which the reimagined, rebranded and “destigmatized” “good drone” is presented in the trade environment. Drawing upon fieldwork material, it has explored the trade-show framing of the drone as a powerful, inevitable and limitless solution, to tasks both known and unknown. In so doing, it has pointed to the value in further exploring the techno-fetishist “mystification” and “masking” of the “implications of [commercial] drones … how they act” (Klauser, 2015) moving forward.

Described as the “signature device of the present moment” (Noys, 2014), the drone is a technology whose path is still very much unfolding. Trade shows provide both a window of access and a lens through which to consider the rhetoric and aesthetic framings propelling the proliferation of the commercial drone. A speaker at The Commercial UAV Show 2014 proclaimed, quoting Peter Drucker, that “the best way to predict the future is to create it”. Reflecting the wider imaginations and framings of technological inevitability and possibility, this quote was met with resounding applause. By beginning to attend to such sites, framings and imaginations, this paper has sought to offer a reflection of the commercial drone as a significant emergent technology “poised between `reality and dream, present and future, fact and fiction”' (Hayles, 2004, in Anderson, 2007:158).