- Email: [email protected]
Leveling the playing field: factors influencing trade show success for small companies
Industrial Marketing Management 31 (2002) 229 – 239
Leveling the playing field: factors inf luencing trade show success for small companies John F. Tanner Jr.* Marketing Department, Baylor University, P.O. Box 98007, Waco, TX 76798-8007, USA Received 11 October 1999; accepted 25 April 2000
Abstract Recent research indicates that trade shows are a place to find prospects and close sales. Yet, many requisites of success found in prior studies may not be available to companies with limited resources. A study that compares the activities of successful vs. unsuccessful exhibitors from small companies was conducted. Results indicate similar budgets, yet very different results. Factors influencing success include strategic factors such as centering responsibility in one position, as well as tactical decisions such as those regarding pre-show promotion. D 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Trade shows; Small business; Promotion; Marketing Communications
1. Introduction Trade shows have long been recognized for presenting an opportunity to sell face-to-face at a cost per contact far below that of an industrial sales call [1]. For many companies, trade shows provide low-cost access to new markets, such as global markets, and to markets that would otherwise be unapproachable [2]. These factors have combined to make trade shows an attractive marketing communications venue. Many marketing experts also consider trade shows as a level playing field, a place where a smaller company can look like a larger one. Yet the reality of million dollar, multilevel booths, high dollar hospitality functions, and other factors can make trade shows seem like just another venue in which the small company gets lost. This paper presents the results of a study designed to examine factors leading to successful exhibiting by small businesses in an effort to further develop a general model of trade show success.
2. Previous research Over the years, there have been a number of papers that discuss what companies should do to make their exhibit * Tel.: +1-254-710-3523; fax: +1-254-710-1068. E-mail address: jeff _ [email protected] (J.F. Tanner Jr.).
dollar more productive. The emphasis of shows, however, has changed over that same period. For example, 30 years ago, trade shows were seen as an opportunity to build morale among employees [3], in part due to the party atmosphere of conventions. Show duty was seen as a perk, to be dispensed as a reward. How managers would manage their show marketing dollars in the late 1960s is somewhat different than managing those dollars today because more emphasis is placed on generating business. Recent research indicates that shows are now viewed as a place to find prospects and close sales [4], rather than as a morale-boosting perk. Similarly, purchasing professionals view trade shows as a place to see and evaluate many vendors because they no longer have time for sales calls in their office [5]. As the nature of trade shows has changed, much of the early research into exhibit effectiveness has become somewhat obsolete. In the 1990s, more research than ever has been published concerning trade show effectiveness. One of the key issues driving trade show research has been determining the return on the investment in order to justify allocation of marketing budget. Marketing dollars are a scarce resource and management wants to ensure that those dollars are spent wisely. Therefore, most trade research has been developed from this managerial approach. Two studies in particular presented general frameworks for marketing managers.
0019-8501/02/$ – see front matter D 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 0 1 9 - 8 5 0 1 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 1 3 2 - 2
230
J.F. Tanner Jr. / Industrial Marketing Management 31 (2002) 229–239
2.1. Managerial frameworks The first framework was developed by Kerin and Cron [6], who divided trade show activities into two categories: selling and non-selling activities. Another term for nonselling might be promotional activities, as these included press conferences, but other activities such as gathering competitive information were also included. Marketing managers had difficulty making the distinction as to what was selling and what was non-selling in that study, however, as items such as introducing products were listed as a selling activity and activities such as discussing new products with customers ended up in the non-selling category. So while the two categories made conceptual sense, actually breaking down show activity into two categories was difficult [7]. The second framework is much more recent, and involves a three-step process of exhibiting [4,8,9]. The first step is pre-show marketing activities (not to be confused with such activities as building a booth, these activities involve promoting the visit to the booth). Step two is atshow activities and the third step is post-show follow-up. This framework makes conceptual sense and has long been in use by the industry. What was perhaps most useful in the study was that Gopalakrishna et al. [4] were able to document the effects of a trade show visit. Accounts were divided two ways: small vs. large customers, and prospective vs. current customers. A pre-show measure of buying intentions found no difference between either set of two groups, yet post-show sales figures indicated significantly greater purchases among those who visited the booth. Thus, trade show participation should pay off in greater sales. That particular study, however, measured only overall success and did not examine specific practices. Further, the study involved only one company and what may be effective for a large company may not work for small companies. To examine what may work for small companies, three studies focused on small company trade show marketing practices. 2.2. Small-firm research The first study compared two small firms against one large firm [10]. Performance for 10 common shows (shows in which head-to-head comparisons could be made) over a 3-year period was examined. The large firm did much better than either small firm in attracting a proportion of interested visitors to their booth. This finding was not surprising given the fact that the firm already enjoyed greater awareness and interest prior to the show. At the same time, however, contact efficiency, or the ability of booth staff to make contact with interested visitors who do enter the booth, was no different for large vs. small. The researchers concluded, though, that small firms seem to suffer from a double jeopardy effect because small firms were less able to convert contacts into leads. Double jeopardy reflects the inability to attract the same percentage of interested visitors to the booth and to then convert those
who do visit into leads. They speculated that small firms may not do as good a job in staffing the booth, training the booth staff, and other in-booth factors that influence the ability to convert visitors into leads. Booth staff behavior was the focus of another study of small exhibitors [11]. This study involved interactive observation, which is a form of mystery shopping. In that study, researchers played the role of various types of buyers, then observed behaviors by booth staff. All interactions took place in booths no larger than 10 20, so while some companies may have been large (Xerox, for example, had a small booth), most companies in the study were small. After the show, a questionnaire was mailed to all booth staff who participated (were ‘‘shopped’’) in the study. An important finding in this study for exhibit managers to consider was that training could have a negative impact on booth performance. While formal training increased the speed with which visitors were greeted (irrespective of whether the visitor was active, curious, or passive), informal training resulted in longer contact time than no training at all. Similarly, formally trained booth staff closed visitors more than once on average, yet informally trained booth staff closed in fewer than half the interactions, again underperforming untrained staff. The third study of small companies’ exhibiting practices involved a sample of contract manufacturers [12]. Contract manufacturers make component parts for original equipment manufacturers, and include machine shops, injection plastics, ceramics, and other forms of manufacturing. That study examined staffing practices, staff training, and the relationship of staffing practices to exhibiting goals. Getting sales was the most frequently listed primary goal (43%), and getting leads was the second most frequently listed primary goal (32%). Getting sales was also the second most frequently listed secondary goal, with general marketing communications being the most frequently listed secondary goal (41%). The study provides evidence that the nature of shows has changed to emphasize the need to generate sales. There were two key findings presented in that study. The first is that almost 80% of firms surveyed reported using informal training for their booth staff. Remembering the detrimental effects of informal training on booth staff behaviors found in the shopping study and the results from the head-to-head comparison, it is not surprising to find that small companies suffer from double jeopardy. The second key finding was that no exhibit management activities were found to correlate with stated objectives. In other words, companies tended to do the same things regardless of their show objectives. Exhibit activities included number of shows per year, number and composition of booth staff, training practices, and decision-making practices. In summary, these research findings indicate that small businesses are not taking full advantage of the opportunity that shows provide. A double jeopardy effect occurs, perhaps due to inadequate staff training. Further, trade
J.F. Tanner Jr. / Industrial Marketing Management 31 (2002) 229–239
show practices do not seem to be goals-driven. Thus, in spite of the potential that shows seem to offer, small firms have not been able to fully tap that potential. In Section 3, the framework that guided the current study is offered.
3. A framework of trade show success The first element of the framework is the division of objectives into promotional (or behavioral [7]) and selling (see Fig. 1). Rather than divide activities into two components, something that managers had difficulty in doing [6], it may be more helpful to consider two types of objectives that are set. Thus, an activity, such as talking to someone about a new product, can support both objectives. Some activities will support one objective more than the other, and some exhibit programs will be geared more toward one objective than the other, but the focus is on objectives rather than activities. The question then becomes what types of objectives do successful exhibitors set. Tanner and Chonko [12] reported that small exhibitors tend to set sales objectives, a finding that does not suggest any difference between successful and unsuccessful exhibitors. However, the trade literature suggests multiple objectives are necessary to fully leverage the value of a trade show, hence, the hypothesis that successful exhibitors set more goals, both promotion and sales-oriented. Hypothesis 1: Successful exhibitors set more objectives for shows than do less successful exhibitors.
The second element of the framework involves the threestep process identified by Gopalakrishna and his colleagues of pre-show, at-show, and post-show activities. In general, it would be expected that a more successful exhibitor would have more effective pre-show promotion, more effective atshow activities, and better follow-up. In this study, given the developmental nature of the framework, the hypothesis is simply that successful exhibitors are more likely to make use of pre-show promotion.
231
Hypothesis 2: Successful exhibitors are more likely than less successful exhibitors to make use of preshow promotion.
In addition, more successful exhibitors are also more likely to follow up on prospects and customers after the show. Previous research has found that small companies set sales objectives as their primary reason for exhibiting [12]. If getting sales is a primary objective, companies would be expected to follow up after the show in order to close the sale. Therefore, it is hypothesized that successful exhibitors are more likely to follow up after the show. Hypothesis 3: Successful exhibitors are more likely to follow up after the show than are less successful exhibitors.
If we consider the general research question of whether success is a factor of expertise, then it seems likely that experts would recognize a more multi-dimensional perspective of performance than just getting leads. This broader perspective should result in more measures of exhibit performance. Therefore, it is hypothesized that more successful exhibitors are more likely to use multiple measures of exhibit performance, both quantitative and qualitative. Hypothesis 4: Successful exhibitors use more methods to measure success than do less successful exhibitors.
Two other general elements were considered. First, one alternative hypothesis to simply doing things better is that more successful companies spend more for shows. By having more money to spend, they are able to increase their frequency and reach for pre-show promotion and other forms of marketing communication to increase traffic. They can also spend more on the show itself, with more attractive and customized exhibits, more staff, and other at-show amenities. Therefore, it was hypothesized that show budget influences perceptions of success. Hypothesis 5: Successful exhibitors have larger show budgets than do less successful exhibitors.
Fig. 1. Proposed framework for perceptions of trade show success.
232
J.F. Tanner Jr. / Industrial Marketing Management 31 (2002) 229–239
The second general element concerned who participates in show planning. Trade literature often suggests that exhibit managers involve top management in the show process to ensure success. Therefore, it was hypothesized that successful exhibitors would list top management as responsible for making budget decisions and show selection decisions. Hypothesis 6: Successful exhibitors have top management making budgeting and show selection decisions, while less successful exhibitors do not have top management participation.
4. The study 4.1. Sample The American Business Information (ABI) database was used to determine a list of 3395 companies with annual revenue under US$50 million. Of the 3395 who were mailed questionnaires, 86 respondents were found to be ineligible and 766 were returned complete and useable, resulting in a response rate of 23.2%. This response rate compares favorably with other cross-sectional commercial mail list samples. 4.2. Questionnaire The questionnaire was developed on the basis of focus group discussions and circulated to a committee of industry professionals. Then the questionnaire was pre-tested on a sample of 50 companies. Individuals were pulled from the database on the basis of titles, with the highest ranking title used for companies between US$5 million and US$20 million and vice-president of sales for those over US$20 million. The pre-test resulted in a 22.5% response rate to the single questionnaire. Minor edits were made to the questionnaire prior to final distribution. The final questionnaire was mailed with a cover letter from DeLoitte and Touche Consulting Group, the firm that collected the data, and a US$1 incentive. Approximately 6 weeks after the initial mailing, a second questionnaire was mailed.
4.3. Results In order to develop a model of factors influencing success, the primary interest in analysis was to determine those factors with the greatest influence on success. The dependent variable is the exhibitor’s perceptions of the overall exhibit program’s success, as rated very successful, successful, unsuccessful, and very unsuccessful. It should be noted that only five subjects reported that their results were very unsuccessful, so interpretations of percentages for that group should be treated with caution. Successful exhibitors have significantly more positive feelings about the effectiveness of trade shows, as one might expect. More successful exhibitors believe trade shows to be the most effective component for every marketing objective, as observed in Table 1, than do less successful exhibitors. (Note that the figures do not sum to 100% because each objective was evaluated separately.) These differences were significant, using c2 analysis. In essence, these findings validate the use of the success measure, in that the more positive outlook on trade show effectiveness mirrors the positive perceptions of success. Similarly, very successful exhibitors have significantly more positive perceptions about trade shows than do their less successful counterparts. Table 2 reports analysis of variance results regarding trade show effectiveness for each level of success. Successful exhibitors also report that they are able to reach, at shows, a higher level of management among their customers than are less successful exhibitors. In addition, they report an expectation among their customers to do business at a show. As with previous research (e.g. Ref. [12]), sales objectives were the most important group of objectives to all exhibitors. Yet, as perceptions of success grow, so do the ratings of importance for promotion objectives, as is indicated in the analysis of variance presented in Table 3. Companies that focus just on getting leads and closing sales to the exclusion of promoting brand image or company capabilities are more likely to be unhappy with their exhibit performance, providing support for Hypothesis 1. At the same time, however, only a third of the respondents who reported that they felt their program was success-
Table 1 Results for trade show effectiveness Trade shows are the most effective marketing communication component for: Objective
c2 ( P value)
Very successful (%)
Successful (%)
Unsuccessful (%)
Very unsuccessful (%)
Generating sales leads Taking orders for products/services Introducing new products/services Entering new markets/regions Promoting brand image/visibility Promoting awareness of company and capabilities
.000 .010 .000 .001 .000 .002
57 22 66 44 59 49
49 14 51 31 43 40
25 3 28 15 28 22
0 0 20 0 0 0
Figures do not sum to 100% because each objective was evaluated separately; thus, 57% of successful exhibitors report trade shows as the most effective component for sales leads, but only 22% believe shows to be the most effective component for taking orders (n = 766).
J.F. Tanner Jr. / Industrial Marketing Management 31 (2002) 229–239
233
Table 2 Mean perceptions of trade shows
Trade shows are conducive to networking with other industry professionals We can reach a higher level of management among customers at trade shows A trade show represents a single sales call to a broad base of customers The time involved in exhibiting at trade shows is disruptive to our organization We exhibit at trade shows because our customers expect us to be there Exhibit hours are too long and, therefore, not profitable We exhibit trade shows because our competition does Trade shows are expensive relative to other marketing approaches There are too many trade shows available to us in our market
ANOVA ( P value)
Very successful
Successful
Unsuccessful
Very unsuccessful
.0001 .0001 .0001 .0175 .0001 .0001 .0001 .0068 n.s.
1.6 2.2 2.0 3.6 2.1 4.0 3.0 3.1 3.4
1.8 2.7 2.3 3.4 2.5 3.6 2.8 2.8 3.1
2.1 3.2 2.9 2.9 2.8 3.0 3.1 2.3 3.2
3.8 4.0 4.0 4.2 5.6 5.4 5.8 2.8 2.8
Scale 1 = agree strongly to Scale 5 = disagree strongly (n = 766).
ful or unsuccessful knew how many sales were closed as a result of the show. Over half of the very successful exhibitors track sales due to show efforts, supporting Hypothesis 3. This is an important finding, because it seems apparent that perceptions of success must be based on factors unrelated to performance relative to the objectives. Sales objectives are most important, yet quantitative measures do not seem to be used by most companies, at least in terms of sales closed. Successful exhibitors are more likely to count the number of leads they obtain at a show, and to close sales at the show, supporting Hypothesis 4. Table 4 presents all of the c2 analysis results concerning the use of effectiveness measures for trade shows. The implications of these findings will be discussed in greater detail later in this paper. At this point, however, it is important to note that successful exhibitors engage in practices that are more in line with their stated objectives. In addition to measuring performance relative to objectives, they have also managed to create, or take advantage of, expectations among their buyers to operate in accordance with their objectives. Another important set of findings is that successful exhibitors are much more likely to support their trade show marketing program with an integrated marketing communications effort. Trade publication advertising, field sales support, and direct mail are more likely to be implemented in conjunction with trade shows for successful firms than for unsuccessful firms. These c2 analysis results, listed in Table 5, indicate that trade shows are an integrated part of a complete marketing communications plan, rather than a separate activity, in support of Hypothesis 2. Because some companies are successful in exhibit marketing, they allocate more of their marketing budget to shows. Very successful companies allocate 28% of their marketing budget to trade shows compared to 20% or less for those who are less successful. What is surprising is how little very successful companies allocate to field sales, also only 28% compared to 40% or more for less successful companies. Yet when we remember that successful companies also support shows with a more integrated effort, we can conclude that integration comes at the expense of field sales, at least in terms of percentage of marketing budget.
It is important to note, though, that size of the marketing budget is not related to perceptions of success. Very successful exhibitors spend the same amount of money on their marketing program as do less successful companies, which does not support Hypothesis 5. Table 6 presents c2 analysis results concerning budget allocation by level of success. It appears, though, that there may have been some confusion over how the marketing budget was defined. The allocation question included a percentage for sales, but field sales may not have been considered part of the marketing budget by all respondents. Over 60% of respondents report a total marketing budget under US$250,000 per year, which would seem to indicate that most did not include sales in that figure. If that is the case, then successful exhibitors are spending significantly less on sales and marketing overall (approximately US$350,000 compared to US$417,000 on average).1 Again, this does not support Hypothesis 5. In an earlier study [12], it was reported that exhibit management tended to be a function that was given to someone with little experience. One hypothesis then would be that upper management involvement may be an important factor in success. The findings from this study, however, indicate that upper management involvement is equal for those respondents who are very successful and for those are not (for c2 analysis results, see Table 7), which fails to support Hypothesis 6. One factor, though, is that very successful companies are more likely to have an exhibit manager (keep in mind that this person did not fill out the survey — surveys were only included if filled out by a vice-
1 If the number reported did not include sales, then sales costs could be estimated by dividing the total marketing (without sales) budget by 1 minus the percentage allocated to sales. This number was taken by first calculating an average marketing budget, which was estimated to be US $250,000. The average marketing (non-sales) budget was determined by taking averages for each category of responses to the question concerning marketing budget, then weighting each average by the percentage of respondents in that category. The final overall total was determined by dividing that number by the balance of the marketing budget not allocated to sales. So for very successful companies, the total budget was derived by dividing US $250,000 by 0.72, as the amount allocated to sales was 0.28. For not successful companies, US $250,000 was divided by 0.6, or l – 0.4, which was the amount allocated to sales.
234
J.F. Tanner Jr. / Industrial Marketing Management 31 (2002) 229–239
Table 3 Results for promotion objectives Written objectives for show?
Yes No
Very successful (%)
Successful (%)
Unsuccessful (%)
Very unsuccessful (%)
not significant (c2)
40 60
33 67
25 75
40 60
ANOVA ( P value)
Very successful
Successful
Unsuccessful
Very unsuccessful
Mean importance of show objectives
Promotion objectives Introducing new products/services Entering new markets/regions Educating customers about our products services Gaining publicity or press coverage Accumulating competitive information Showing dealers how to effectively promote our products/services Promoting awareness of company and capabilities Handling customer complaints
.0267 .0039 .0065 n.s. n.s. .05
1.4 1.9 2.7 2.4 1.6 3.1
1.6 2.2 2.8 2.3 1.3 3.3
1.9 2.7 3.2 2.6 1.6 3.9
2.5 3.3 4.0 3.5 2.4 3.8
.0213 .0035
1.7 3.3
1.7 3.3
2.1 4.1
3.0 4.8
Sales objectives Meeting key customers Identifying new customers Generating sales leads from existing customers Generating sales leads from new customers Taking orders for products/services Reaching high quality prospects Conducting business with other exhibitors
.0001 .0049 .0069 .0257 .0047 .0002 n.s.
1.5 1.6 1.8 1.9 2.8 1.8 3.5
1.6 1.5 2.0 1.7 3.2 1.8 3.4
2.3 2.0 2.5 2.2 3.7 2.7 3.7
2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 4.5 2.3 4.0
Scale 1 = very important to Scale 5 = not at all important (n = 754).
president or higher). An exhibit manager may be a function of the number of shows. As companies get more successful, they add shows until the point at which an exhibit manager is needed. Or the successful companies may have made a strategic commitment to shows, which is why they needed
an exhibit manager. Whatever the reason, companies that are successful are more likely to have a resident expert in exhibit marketing. As noted earlier, as companies are more successful with trade shows, they exhibit in more trade shows. Furthermore,
Table 4 Results concerning measures of trade shows c2 results ( P value)
Very successful (%)
Successful (%)
Unsuccessful (%)
Very unsuccessful (%)
Quantifiable measures to evaluate trade shows Yes No
.012
70 30
54 46
68 32
80 20
Less quantifiable measures to evaluate shows Yes No
.000
37 63
63 37
58 42
20 80
.001 n.s. .000 n.s. n.s. n.s. .047 .000 n.s.
56 9 32 44 50 15 46 38 7
34 5 13 32 39 10 34 18 4
35 7 8 40 50 10 40 17 3
40 0 0 20 20 20 0 0 0
Percent using measures used to evaluate shows Number of visitors to booth Number of passers-by (not visiting booth) At-show sales Number of sales leads generated from existing customers Number of sales leads generated from new customers Amount of literature distributed Number of quality leads generated at show Post-show sales Press coverage
Figures do not sum to 100% because exhibitors use multiple measures to evaluate shows (n = 763).
J.F. Tanner Jr. / Industrial Marketing Management 31 (2002) 229–239
235
Table 5 Results for marcomm elements used with trade shows
Trade publication advertising Direct mail Field sales PR Telemarketing Other None
c2 ( P value)
Very successful (%)
Successful (%)
Unsuccessful (%)
Very unsuccessful (%)
.002 .019 .09 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.
60 49 69 36 14 4 5
31 45 66 29 19 3 6
33 30 50 25 13 3 8
0 0 60 20 0 0 0
Figures do not sum to 100 because exhibitors may use multiple marcomm elements as part of their show program (n = 766).
of this study provide several important implications for effective use of trade shows, as well as the value of a combined framework that considers objectives and three stages of activity. Yet, a cursory examination of trade show practices indicates few differences between those who believe they are successful and those who reported less successful trade show results. For example, there appears to be little difference in the way decisions are made about which shows to exhibit, how much to spend, and so forth. The differences in practices that lead to greater success are subtle. These differences may begin with greater expertise on how to use trade shows, rather than what to do. For example, an important principle of effective trade show management is to have upper management support. Both successful and less successful companies report similar participation by upper management. Similarly, having both sales and marketing participate in the decision process should result in stronger trade show performance, but the data indicate similar participation by sales and marketing in both successful and less successful companies. One organizational difference is that successful companies are more likely to employ an exhibit manager (see
successful companies are looking for additional shows in which to exhibit, as indicated by their plans to increase the number of shows in which they will exhibit in the next 12 months and over the next 3 years. c2 analysis results concerning growth plans for future exhibiting are found in Table 8. In summary, there are several key findings regarding success. First, success is not a function of budget or upper management involvement, or involvement across departments. Second, success is a function of integrating marketing communications, or successfully applying communications expertise across several communications venues. Finally, those that are successful appear to be more efficient with their marketing dollars than those who are not.
5. Implications The purpose of the study was to find the practices of trade show marketing that can level the playing field for small businesses. Therefore, the findings of greatest importance are those that indicate the difference between successful and unsuccessful trade show performance. The findings
Table 6 Results for budget
Size of budget (n = 757) Under US$250,000 US$250,000 to US$499,999 US$500,000 to US$749,999 US$750,000 to US$999,999 US$1 million to US$4.9 million US$5 million to US$9.9 million US$10 million to US$19.9 million Note: c2 results are not significant.
Very successful (%)
Successful (%)
Unsuccessful (%)
Very unsuccessful (%)
60 19 5 7 8 0 0
62 16 7 6 9 1 0
66 7 5 9 11 2 0
100 0 0 0 0 0 0
18 9 15 45 7 5 3
– – – – – – –
What percentage of marketing budget is devoted to each of the following subjects (n = 758)? Advertising 17 15 Trade showsa ( P= .001) 28 20 Direct mail 9 10 Salesa ( P= .022) 28 40 PR 8 5 Telemarketing 4 6 Other 5 4 a
These ANOVA results are significantly different across groups; all others are not significantly different.
236
J.F. Tanner Jr. / Industrial Marketing Management 31 (2002) 229–239
Table 7 Results for budget processes Very Very successful Successful Unsuccessful unsuccessful (%) (%) (%) (%) Who makes decisions to allocate marketing funds (n = 752)? Management 87 89 90 80 Marketing 68 69 68 20 Sales 68 70 58 60 Exhibit manager 24 17 12 0 c2 results are not significantly different. Results do not sum to 100% as more than one department is often involved in the decision to allocate funds. What function within your company is responsible for the trade show budget (n = 757)? Marketing 22 22 25 0 communications or advertising Sales 43 37 35 80 Marketing 36 36 32 20 Public relations 4 1 0 0 Corporate 25 23 18 40 Other 3 4 3 0 Results do not sum to 100% as more than one department is often involved in the decision to allocate funds. c2 results are not significantly different. Who makes the ultimate decision to exhibit at a trade show (n = 761)? Management 63 69 68 60 Marketing 51 58 52 20 Sales 44 49 47 60 Exhibit manager 10 6 5 0 Results do not sum to 100% as more than one department is often involved in the ultimate decision to exhibit at a specific show. c2 results are not significantly different.
Table 9). Successful companies exhibit in more shows and one can argue the chicken-and-egg question of which comes first, an exhibit manager or enough shows to support an exhibit manager. But recall the findings of Tanner and Chonko [12], who reported that in small manufacturers, trade show responsibility seemed to float from person to person, depending on the location and nature of the show. What appears to be participation by upper management, sales, and marketing in less successful companies is more likely to be floating responsibility. Successful exhibitors know how to do shows better; they have a set of knowledge or expertise resident in someone responsible for the company’s show strategy and program, rather than responsible for a single show. Therefore, an important pair of implications is to first center responsibility for the show program in one person, and then enable that person to develop the expertise necessary to bring success to the show program. While the number of shows to manage for a small business may not require a full-time exhibit-only manager, someone should be designated the responsibility of creating and implementing the exhibit strategy. At the same time, however, it is important to not lose sight of the need for participation by upper management,
sales, and marketing personnel. With the importance of sales objectives, it is wise to offer sales management a voice in the decision process, and an opportunity to comment on the content and style of the message that is being communicated. Similarly, as audiences include current customers, potential investors, and the press, upper management should participate in the process. Without centering strategy in one responsible person, however, it is likely that no real strategy will be created. Successful firms also integrate their trade show program into a multi-channel communication strategy. Successful firms indicated more supporting elements of the marketing mix than did less successful firms. Thus, companies that want to increase the return on their investment in trade shows should consider supporting their shows with direct mail (both pre- and post-show), trade publication advertising, and field sales support. In another study [13], small companies were found to be less likely to use telephone invitations from salespeople than are large companies, for example. Direct mail was also less likely to be used. A study of attendees found that personal invitations from salespeople (either by mail or telephone) were important influences in the decision to attend a show [14]. Yet in this study, successful companies are more likely to support their trade show efforts with direct mail and field sales support than do less successful companies. Field sales must be fully integrated for several reasons. Not only can field sales invite potential attendees to the booth, field salespeople staff the booth and are responsible for following up with leads gained at the show. While Table 8 Results for number of shows Very successful (%)
Successful (%)
Unsuccessful (%)
Very unsuccessful (%)
Number of shows last year (c2 results significant, P = .000, n = 766) 0 2 1 12 40 1 9 13 25 40 2–3 25 36 33 20 4–5 24 21 13 0 6 – 10 18 17 10 0 11 – 14 7 5 2 0 15 – 19 2 4 0 0 20 + 12 3 5 0 100 100 100 100 Trade show plans for the next 12 months (c2 results significant, P = .000, n = 766) More shows 41 25 17 0 Same number 9 12 35 20 Fewer shows 50 63 47 80 Trade show plans for the next 3 years (c2 n = 766) More shows 54 42 Same number 7 9 Fewer shows 25 34 Do not know 14 15
results significant, P = .001, 20 22 32 26
20 0 60 20
J.F. Tanner Jr. / Industrial Marketing Management 31 (2002) 229–239 Table 9 The successful (small company) exhibitor
responsibility for planning and implementing in one person Centers broad participation by upper management, sales, and marketing Enjoys management in the planning process Implements shows as part of a coherent strategy involving multiple channels of communication Integrates field sales in pre-show invitation, booth staffing, and post-show follow-up quantitative measures of performance Develops Capitalizes on expertise centered in one person to exhibit in the same number of shows (as less successful exhibitors) but at a lower cost per show Reaches a higher level of management among potential buyers at the show through coherent pre-show promotion Involves salespeople in planning the booth experience with each visit becoming more like a sales call
salespeople seem to participate at the same level in both successful and less successful organizations, there is a difference in what they do and how they do it. For example, Tanner [11] reported that training can impact booth staff performance, but negatively as well as positively. Informal training slows the time to engage a visitor, reduces the number of closes made by the staff person, and results in more idle chit chat than no training at all. Formal training, however, leads to the fastest time to begin a conversation, a conversation full of specific questions to identify needs, and more than one close during the conversation. These results indicate the importance of doing the right things the right way. Fully integrating salespeople makes sense, given that sales objectives are the most important. Yet quantitative measures of sales success are less likely to be collected by less successful exhibitors. The potential causes of poor measurement can include not developing systems for collecting the data, an unwillingness to quantify poor performance in meeting sales objectives, or similar reasons. Perhaps, the poor measurement of show performance is a function of a lack of show management expertise. Some might argue that their sales cycles are too long to enable measurement of post-show sales. There are methods, however, of estimating post-show sales based on conversion ratios [17]. These ratios require qualifying leads and recording leads in the appropriate categories, though, activities that less successful exhibitors are not fulfilling. Without an expert to design the system of identifying and tracking leads, and without the full cooperation of the sales force, no company can adequately determine if sales objectives are met at the show, Companies successful in their trade show programs are planning to increase their trade show efforts. They also are more likely to allocate marketing budget increases to shows and less likely to allocate decreases to shows. Obviously, when something works, you want to do more of it. With sales objectives just as important to these companies as those who have been less successful, it is interesting to note
237
that these companies spend less on field sales. And, since they spend about the same amount that less successful companies do on trade show marketing, and since they exhibit in two to three times the number of shows, successful companies are significantly more efficient in the use of their overall marketing dollars. So not only are they more successful in gaining sales from their show program, they do so at a lower cost per sale. As a clue to what successful exhibitors do differently, examine Table 2 and their perceptions of trade shows. Successful companies reach a higher level of management among customers, do more networking at shows, and treat the visit more like a sales call. Given their integrative marketing communications plan for exhibit marketing and the full involvement of sales personnel, these companies have a better audience to begin with. Then at the show, they get more accomplished. Rather than wistfully listing sales objectives as the primary reason for attending, they have developed a complete strategy for achieving those objectives. 5.1. Implications for future research This study highlights the importance of understanding the multi-stage nature of trade shows. A primary concern for future research should be the at-show stage and the factors at the show that influence success. For example, at the Motivation Show in September 1999, one company hired a security guard to watch over a drawing for a real diamond. A real diamond was placed in a fishbowl with many fake diamonds, and the security guard added validity to the promotion. Each attendee who drew for a diamond also had their badge scanned so that the company captured a huge list of leads. The line of attendees waiting to draw for the diamond often stretched past two other booths. Little presentation was done at the show, as the only objective was to obtain leads. Future research should consider the relative value of such a promotional stunt, the factors that increase attendee participation in promotional stunts, and the nature of attendee response to such stunts relative to making buying decisions as part of an overall stream of research that considers at-show activities. Dekimpe et al. [15] compared other tactical variables, such as booth size and personnel, across US and UK companies. In that study, more similarities than disparities were found among companies’ experiences across countries. In general, booth size, number of personnel available, and pre-show promotion were major determinants of effectiveness, a finding that replicated the earlier (US-only) findings of Gopalakrishna et al. [4]. What remains to be seen is the explicit relationship between objectives and activities. The two studies just described used attraction measures, or measures relating to the percentage of the desired audience who visited the booth. Many other measures of trade show performance exist (cf. Refs. [16,17]). What is unknown about the
238
J.F. Tanner Jr. / Industrial Marketing Management 31 (2002) 229–239
companies in those studies is the degree to which attraction was a primary objective. While all firms want visitors, the issue of quality of interaction has not been addressed. The companies that participated in the two studies above are also probably more sophisticated users of trade shows than are some of the users in this study, as those companies chose to pay for post-show studies of their program effectiveness (from which the data were drawn). When they specify desired audience characteristics that are then used to calculate attraction effectiveness, they were setting one parameter of performance that should have influenced their at-show activities. Thus, there may be greater relationship between objectives and at-show activities for that sample than what Tanner and Chonko [12] studied. Recall that Tanner and Chonko [12] were unable to see any such relationship in a random sample of small exhibitors. This study does present more finely grained measures of objectives than used by Tanner and Chonko [12] and can motivate research that examines trade shows as a process. Similarly, the influence of measures (such as attraction effectiveness) on activities — i.e. what is measured is what is done — should also be considered. Budgets were found to be similarly distributed among successful and unsuccessful exhibitors in this study. In a study of trade show budgeting, Lilien [18] reported that companies are likely to spend more for trade shows when the product is early in the life cycle, sales are high, sales plans are aggressive, and there is low customer concentration. In this study, customer concentration should be relatively the same, since subjects were drawn at random from the same industries. However, factors such as stage in life cycle, sales rates, and marketing/sales plans were not included. Future research should consider such company factors when examining the company’s trade show program success. In an experimental study of a model of trade show decision processes, expected audience characteristics were the most important factor when deciding to exhibit [19]. The authors of that study summarized several Trade Show Bureau reports to indicate the different roles that top management, marketing management, sales management, and exhibit management play in the trade show decision process. The study, however, did not explicitly examine those roles. In this study, the roles were not quite as expected, with corporate marketing having less authority over the show selection than top management. However, the difference may reflect a difference in the size of companies used in this study. Kijewski et al. [19] also call for research that examines the role of other communication vehicles to promote visiting a booth. This study does consider the contribution of advertising, direct mail, and other forms of marketing communication to perceptions of success. Like the studies involving attraction efficiency [4,15], this study does find that pre-show promotion does influence success. The next step, it would seem, would be to relate pre-show promotion
objectives to overall show objectives, and to determine factors that influence the use of pre-show promotion. For example, Lilien’s [18] study of factors influencing trade show budget size could be considered as a starting point for understanding the role of pre-show promotion. Further, from a theoretical perspective, it may be useful to distinguish between perceptions of success and actual success. General measures were used here in order to understand managers’ motivations for their actions and programs. Future research may consider the relationship between expectations (objectives), results, and perceptions, as part of an ongoing marketing communication strategy. Similarly, Rice [20] raised the chicken-and-egg question of perceptions of success and investment in shows. Clearly, the desire of successful exhibitors to increase show participation (as reported in Table 8) is due to their experience of success. While she was discussing trade show practices in international arenas, though, her proposition that managers with positive attitudes about shows will invest more in shows could not be supported by this study, as successful and unsuccessful companies spent the same overall on trade shows. What needs to be studied is the evolution of marketing strategy, as budgets are allocated and re-allocated based on success, or the lack thereof.
6. Conclusion Companies who successfully develop integrated marketing communication programs emphasizing trade shows do so because shows create sales — at least for them. These companies create a competitive advantage through their use of shows in two ways. First, they are twice as likely to close sales from their trade show exposure, so they gain the advantage of increase in sales. Second, the data indicate that they are able to gain these sales more efficiently, at a lower cost per sale. They also obtain two to three times the exposure because they can exhibit in more shows at the same cost. On the surface, there appears to be little difference in how they go about achieving these competitive advantages. Close examination of the data, though, indicate that they have additional expertise that enables them to make better use of their show experience. In addition, responsibility and authority for show operations and success are centered within someone who has and can develop that expertise. The data clearly indicate that success is not based on a preference for shows, but rather on the performance of activities that lead to success. Less successful companies can level the trade show playing field by identifying someone in the organization to take on the exhibit marketing responsibility, then providing that person with the opportunity to develop the necessary expertise to develop a coordinated marketing communication plan that will lead the program to success.
J.F. Tanner Jr. / Industrial Marketing Management 31 (2002) 229–239
Acknowledgments This research was made possible by grants from the Center for Exhibition Industry Research and the Trade Show Exhibitors Education Foundation.
References [1] Bellizzi JA, Lipps DJ. Managerial guidelines for trade show effectiveness. Ind Mark Manage 1984;13:49 – 52. [2] O’Hara B, Palumbo F, Herbig P. Industrial trade shows abroad. Ind Mark Manage 1993;22:233 – 7. [3] Carman JM. Evaluation of trade show exhibitions. Calif Manage Rev 1968;XI(2):35 – 44 (Winter). [4] Gopalakrishna S, Lilien G, Williams J, Sequiera I. Do trade shows pay off ? J Mark 1995;59:75 – 84 (July). [5] Tanner JF, Chonko LB, Ponzurisk T. Trade shows as learning activities: a learning approach to marketing communications. Baylor University Center for Professional Selling. Working Paper Series, 1998. [6] Kerin RA, Cron WL. Assessing trade show functions and performance: an exploratory study. J Mark 1987;59:87 – 94 (July). [7] Hansen K. Trade show performance: a conceptual framework and its implications for future research. Acad Mark Sci Rev 1999 (Online), amsreview.org/amsrev/theory/hansen08-99.html. [8] Gopalakrishna S, Lilien G. A three-stage model of industrial trade show performance. Mark Sci 1995;14:22 – 42 (Winter).
239
[9] Rosson PJ, Seringhaus FHR. Visitor and exhibitor interaction at industrial trade fairs. J Bus Res 1995;32:81 – 90. [10] Williams DJ, Gopalakrishna S, Cox JM. Trade show guidelines for smaller firms. Ind Mark Manage 1993;22:265 – 75. [11] Tanner JF. Adaptive selling at trade shows. J Pers Selling Sales Manage 1994;22:15 – 23 (Spring). [12] Tanner JF, Chonko LB. Trade shows objectives, management, and staffing practices. Ind Mark Manage 1995;22:257 – 64. [13] Tanner JF, Chonko LB. Using trade shows throughout the product life cycle, Center for Exhibition Industry Research Report SM2S, 1996. [14] Tanner JF, Chonko LB. What trade show attendees want from direct mail, Center for Exhibition Industry Research Report, 5M31, 1994. [15] Dekimpe M, Francois P, Gopalakrishna S, Lilien G, Van den Bulte C. Generalizing about trade show effectiveness: a cross-national comparison. J Mark 1997;61:55 – 64. [16] Sashi CM, Peretty J. Do trade shows provide value? Ind Mark Manage 1992;25:249 – 55. [17] Dwyer RA, Tanner JF. Business marketing: connecting strategy, relationships, and learning. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 1999. [18] Lilien GL. A descriptive model of the trade-show budgeting decision process. Ind Mark Manage 1983;12:25 – 9. [19] Kijewski V, Yoon E, Young G. How exhibitors select trade shows. Ind Mark Manage 1993;22:287 – 98. [20] Rice G. Using the interaction approach to understand international trade shows. Int Mark Rev 1992;9:32 – 45. Jeff Tanner (PhD, University of Georgia) is the Associate Dean for Undergraduate Programs and Associate Professor of Marketing at the Hankamer School of Business, Baylor University.
Leveling the playing field: factors inf luencing trade show success for small companies John F. Tanner Jr.* Marketing Department, Baylor University, P.O. Box 98007, Waco, TX 76798-8007, USA Received 11 October 1999; accepted 25 April 2000
Abstract Recent research indicates that trade shows are a place to find prospects and close sales. Yet, many requisites of success found in prior studies may not be available to companies with limited resources. A study that compares the activities of successful vs. unsuccessful exhibitors from small companies was conducted. Results indicate similar budgets, yet very different results. Factors influencing success include strategic factors such as centering responsibility in one position, as well as tactical decisions such as those regarding pre-show promotion. D 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Trade shows; Small business; Promotion; Marketing Communications
1. Introduction Trade shows have long been recognized for presenting an opportunity to sell face-to-face at a cost per contact far below that of an industrial sales call [1]. For many companies, trade shows provide low-cost access to new markets, such as global markets, and to markets that would otherwise be unapproachable [2]. These factors have combined to make trade shows an attractive marketing communications venue. Many marketing experts also consider trade shows as a level playing field, a place where a smaller company can look like a larger one. Yet the reality of million dollar, multilevel booths, high dollar hospitality functions, and other factors can make trade shows seem like just another venue in which the small company gets lost. This paper presents the results of a study designed to examine factors leading to successful exhibiting by small businesses in an effort to further develop a general model of trade show success.
2. Previous research Over the years, there have been a number of papers that discuss what companies should do to make their exhibit * Tel.: +1-254-710-3523; fax: +1-254-710-1068. E-mail address: jeff _ [email protected] (J.F. Tanner Jr.).
dollar more productive. The emphasis of shows, however, has changed over that same period. For example, 30 years ago, trade shows were seen as an opportunity to build morale among employees [3], in part due to the party atmosphere of conventions. Show duty was seen as a perk, to be dispensed as a reward. How managers would manage their show marketing dollars in the late 1960s is somewhat different than managing those dollars today because more emphasis is placed on generating business. Recent research indicates that shows are now viewed as a place to find prospects and close sales [4], rather than as a morale-boosting perk. Similarly, purchasing professionals view trade shows as a place to see and evaluate many vendors because they no longer have time for sales calls in their office [5]. As the nature of trade shows has changed, much of the early research into exhibit effectiveness has become somewhat obsolete. In the 1990s, more research than ever has been published concerning trade show effectiveness. One of the key issues driving trade show research has been determining the return on the investment in order to justify allocation of marketing budget. Marketing dollars are a scarce resource and management wants to ensure that those dollars are spent wisely. Therefore, most trade research has been developed from this managerial approach. Two studies in particular presented general frameworks for marketing managers.
0019-8501/02/$ – see front matter D 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 0 1 9 - 8 5 0 1 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 1 3 2 - 2
230
J.F. Tanner Jr. / Industrial Marketing Management 31 (2002) 229–239
2.1. Managerial frameworks The first framework was developed by Kerin and Cron [6], who divided trade show activities into two categories: selling and non-selling activities. Another term for nonselling might be promotional activities, as these included press conferences, but other activities such as gathering competitive information were also included. Marketing managers had difficulty making the distinction as to what was selling and what was non-selling in that study, however, as items such as introducing products were listed as a selling activity and activities such as discussing new products with customers ended up in the non-selling category. So while the two categories made conceptual sense, actually breaking down show activity into two categories was difficult [7]. The second framework is much more recent, and involves a three-step process of exhibiting [4,8,9]. The first step is pre-show marketing activities (not to be confused with such activities as building a booth, these activities involve promoting the visit to the booth). Step two is atshow activities and the third step is post-show follow-up. This framework makes conceptual sense and has long been in use by the industry. What was perhaps most useful in the study was that Gopalakrishna et al. [4] were able to document the effects of a trade show visit. Accounts were divided two ways: small vs. large customers, and prospective vs. current customers. A pre-show measure of buying intentions found no difference between either set of two groups, yet post-show sales figures indicated significantly greater purchases among those who visited the booth. Thus, trade show participation should pay off in greater sales. That particular study, however, measured only overall success and did not examine specific practices. Further, the study involved only one company and what may be effective for a large company may not work for small companies. To examine what may work for small companies, three studies focused on small company trade show marketing practices. 2.2. Small-firm research The first study compared two small firms against one large firm [10]. Performance for 10 common shows (shows in which head-to-head comparisons could be made) over a 3-year period was examined. The large firm did much better than either small firm in attracting a proportion of interested visitors to their booth. This finding was not surprising given the fact that the firm already enjoyed greater awareness and interest prior to the show. At the same time, however, contact efficiency, or the ability of booth staff to make contact with interested visitors who do enter the booth, was no different for large vs. small. The researchers concluded, though, that small firms seem to suffer from a double jeopardy effect because small firms were less able to convert contacts into leads. Double jeopardy reflects the inability to attract the same percentage of interested visitors to the booth and to then convert those
who do visit into leads. They speculated that small firms may not do as good a job in staffing the booth, training the booth staff, and other in-booth factors that influence the ability to convert visitors into leads. Booth staff behavior was the focus of another study of small exhibitors [11]. This study involved interactive observation, which is a form of mystery shopping. In that study, researchers played the role of various types of buyers, then observed behaviors by booth staff. All interactions took place in booths no larger than 10 20, so while some companies may have been large (Xerox, for example, had a small booth), most companies in the study were small. After the show, a questionnaire was mailed to all booth staff who participated (were ‘‘shopped’’) in the study. An important finding in this study for exhibit managers to consider was that training could have a negative impact on booth performance. While formal training increased the speed with which visitors were greeted (irrespective of whether the visitor was active, curious, or passive), informal training resulted in longer contact time than no training at all. Similarly, formally trained booth staff closed visitors more than once on average, yet informally trained booth staff closed in fewer than half the interactions, again underperforming untrained staff. The third study of small companies’ exhibiting practices involved a sample of contract manufacturers [12]. Contract manufacturers make component parts for original equipment manufacturers, and include machine shops, injection plastics, ceramics, and other forms of manufacturing. That study examined staffing practices, staff training, and the relationship of staffing practices to exhibiting goals. Getting sales was the most frequently listed primary goal (43%), and getting leads was the second most frequently listed primary goal (32%). Getting sales was also the second most frequently listed secondary goal, with general marketing communications being the most frequently listed secondary goal (41%). The study provides evidence that the nature of shows has changed to emphasize the need to generate sales. There were two key findings presented in that study. The first is that almost 80% of firms surveyed reported using informal training for their booth staff. Remembering the detrimental effects of informal training on booth staff behaviors found in the shopping study and the results from the head-to-head comparison, it is not surprising to find that small companies suffer from double jeopardy. The second key finding was that no exhibit management activities were found to correlate with stated objectives. In other words, companies tended to do the same things regardless of their show objectives. Exhibit activities included number of shows per year, number and composition of booth staff, training practices, and decision-making practices. In summary, these research findings indicate that small businesses are not taking full advantage of the opportunity that shows provide. A double jeopardy effect occurs, perhaps due to inadequate staff training. Further, trade
J.F. Tanner Jr. / Industrial Marketing Management 31 (2002) 229–239
show practices do not seem to be goals-driven. Thus, in spite of the potential that shows seem to offer, small firms have not been able to fully tap that potential. In Section 3, the framework that guided the current study is offered.
3. A framework of trade show success The first element of the framework is the division of objectives into promotional (or behavioral [7]) and selling (see Fig. 1). Rather than divide activities into two components, something that managers had difficulty in doing [6], it may be more helpful to consider two types of objectives that are set. Thus, an activity, such as talking to someone about a new product, can support both objectives. Some activities will support one objective more than the other, and some exhibit programs will be geared more toward one objective than the other, but the focus is on objectives rather than activities. The question then becomes what types of objectives do successful exhibitors set. Tanner and Chonko [12] reported that small exhibitors tend to set sales objectives, a finding that does not suggest any difference between successful and unsuccessful exhibitors. However, the trade literature suggests multiple objectives are necessary to fully leverage the value of a trade show, hence, the hypothesis that successful exhibitors set more goals, both promotion and sales-oriented. Hypothesis 1: Successful exhibitors set more objectives for shows than do less successful exhibitors.
The second element of the framework involves the threestep process identified by Gopalakrishna and his colleagues of pre-show, at-show, and post-show activities. In general, it would be expected that a more successful exhibitor would have more effective pre-show promotion, more effective atshow activities, and better follow-up. In this study, given the developmental nature of the framework, the hypothesis is simply that successful exhibitors are more likely to make use of pre-show promotion.
231
Hypothesis 2: Successful exhibitors are more likely than less successful exhibitors to make use of preshow promotion.
In addition, more successful exhibitors are also more likely to follow up on prospects and customers after the show. Previous research has found that small companies set sales objectives as their primary reason for exhibiting [12]. If getting sales is a primary objective, companies would be expected to follow up after the show in order to close the sale. Therefore, it is hypothesized that successful exhibitors are more likely to follow up after the show. Hypothesis 3: Successful exhibitors are more likely to follow up after the show than are less successful exhibitors.
If we consider the general research question of whether success is a factor of expertise, then it seems likely that experts would recognize a more multi-dimensional perspective of performance than just getting leads. This broader perspective should result in more measures of exhibit performance. Therefore, it is hypothesized that more successful exhibitors are more likely to use multiple measures of exhibit performance, both quantitative and qualitative. Hypothesis 4: Successful exhibitors use more methods to measure success than do less successful exhibitors.
Two other general elements were considered. First, one alternative hypothesis to simply doing things better is that more successful companies spend more for shows. By having more money to spend, they are able to increase their frequency and reach for pre-show promotion and other forms of marketing communication to increase traffic. They can also spend more on the show itself, with more attractive and customized exhibits, more staff, and other at-show amenities. Therefore, it was hypothesized that show budget influences perceptions of success. Hypothesis 5: Successful exhibitors have larger show budgets than do less successful exhibitors.
Fig. 1. Proposed framework for perceptions of trade show success.
232
J.F. Tanner Jr. / Industrial Marketing Management 31 (2002) 229–239
The second general element concerned who participates in show planning. Trade literature often suggests that exhibit managers involve top management in the show process to ensure success. Therefore, it was hypothesized that successful exhibitors would list top management as responsible for making budget decisions and show selection decisions. Hypothesis 6: Successful exhibitors have top management making budgeting and show selection decisions, while less successful exhibitors do not have top management participation.
4. The study 4.1. Sample The American Business Information (ABI) database was used to determine a list of 3395 companies with annual revenue under US$50 million. Of the 3395 who were mailed questionnaires, 86 respondents were found to be ineligible and 766 were returned complete and useable, resulting in a response rate of 23.2%. This response rate compares favorably with other cross-sectional commercial mail list samples. 4.2. Questionnaire The questionnaire was developed on the basis of focus group discussions and circulated to a committee of industry professionals. Then the questionnaire was pre-tested on a sample of 50 companies. Individuals were pulled from the database on the basis of titles, with the highest ranking title used for companies between US$5 million and US$20 million and vice-president of sales for those over US$20 million. The pre-test resulted in a 22.5% response rate to the single questionnaire. Minor edits were made to the questionnaire prior to final distribution. The final questionnaire was mailed with a cover letter from DeLoitte and Touche Consulting Group, the firm that collected the data, and a US$1 incentive. Approximately 6 weeks after the initial mailing, a second questionnaire was mailed.
4.3. Results In order to develop a model of factors influencing success, the primary interest in analysis was to determine those factors with the greatest influence on success. The dependent variable is the exhibitor’s perceptions of the overall exhibit program’s success, as rated very successful, successful, unsuccessful, and very unsuccessful. It should be noted that only five subjects reported that their results were very unsuccessful, so interpretations of percentages for that group should be treated with caution. Successful exhibitors have significantly more positive feelings about the effectiveness of trade shows, as one might expect. More successful exhibitors believe trade shows to be the most effective component for every marketing objective, as observed in Table 1, than do less successful exhibitors. (Note that the figures do not sum to 100% because each objective was evaluated separately.) These differences were significant, using c2 analysis. In essence, these findings validate the use of the success measure, in that the more positive outlook on trade show effectiveness mirrors the positive perceptions of success. Similarly, very successful exhibitors have significantly more positive perceptions about trade shows than do their less successful counterparts. Table 2 reports analysis of variance results regarding trade show effectiveness for each level of success. Successful exhibitors also report that they are able to reach, at shows, a higher level of management among their customers than are less successful exhibitors. In addition, they report an expectation among their customers to do business at a show. As with previous research (e.g. Ref. [12]), sales objectives were the most important group of objectives to all exhibitors. Yet, as perceptions of success grow, so do the ratings of importance for promotion objectives, as is indicated in the analysis of variance presented in Table 3. Companies that focus just on getting leads and closing sales to the exclusion of promoting brand image or company capabilities are more likely to be unhappy with their exhibit performance, providing support for Hypothesis 1. At the same time, however, only a third of the respondents who reported that they felt their program was success-
Table 1 Results for trade show effectiveness Trade shows are the most effective marketing communication component for: Objective
c2 ( P value)
Very successful (%)
Successful (%)
Unsuccessful (%)
Very unsuccessful (%)
Generating sales leads Taking orders for products/services Introducing new products/services Entering new markets/regions Promoting brand image/visibility Promoting awareness of company and capabilities
.000 .010 .000 .001 .000 .002
57 22 66 44 59 49
49 14 51 31 43 40
25 3 28 15 28 22
0 0 20 0 0 0
Figures do not sum to 100% because each objective was evaluated separately; thus, 57% of successful exhibitors report trade shows as the most effective component for sales leads, but only 22% believe shows to be the most effective component for taking orders (n = 766).
J.F. Tanner Jr. / Industrial Marketing Management 31 (2002) 229–239
233
Table 2 Mean perceptions of trade shows
Trade shows are conducive to networking with other industry professionals We can reach a higher level of management among customers at trade shows A trade show represents a single sales call to a broad base of customers The time involved in exhibiting at trade shows is disruptive to our organization We exhibit at trade shows because our customers expect us to be there Exhibit hours are too long and, therefore, not profitable We exhibit trade shows because our competition does Trade shows are expensive relative to other marketing approaches There are too many trade shows available to us in our market
ANOVA ( P value)
Very successful
Successful
Unsuccessful
Very unsuccessful
.0001 .0001 .0001 .0175 .0001 .0001 .0001 .0068 n.s.
1.6 2.2 2.0 3.6 2.1 4.0 3.0 3.1 3.4
1.8 2.7 2.3 3.4 2.5 3.6 2.8 2.8 3.1
2.1 3.2 2.9 2.9 2.8 3.0 3.1 2.3 3.2
3.8 4.0 4.0 4.2 5.6 5.4 5.8 2.8 2.8
Scale 1 = agree strongly to Scale 5 = disagree strongly (n = 766).
ful or unsuccessful knew how many sales were closed as a result of the show. Over half of the very successful exhibitors track sales due to show efforts, supporting Hypothesis 3. This is an important finding, because it seems apparent that perceptions of success must be based on factors unrelated to performance relative to the objectives. Sales objectives are most important, yet quantitative measures do not seem to be used by most companies, at least in terms of sales closed. Successful exhibitors are more likely to count the number of leads they obtain at a show, and to close sales at the show, supporting Hypothesis 4. Table 4 presents all of the c2 analysis results concerning the use of effectiveness measures for trade shows. The implications of these findings will be discussed in greater detail later in this paper. At this point, however, it is important to note that successful exhibitors engage in practices that are more in line with their stated objectives. In addition to measuring performance relative to objectives, they have also managed to create, or take advantage of, expectations among their buyers to operate in accordance with their objectives. Another important set of findings is that successful exhibitors are much more likely to support their trade show marketing program with an integrated marketing communications effort. Trade publication advertising, field sales support, and direct mail are more likely to be implemented in conjunction with trade shows for successful firms than for unsuccessful firms. These c2 analysis results, listed in Table 5, indicate that trade shows are an integrated part of a complete marketing communications plan, rather than a separate activity, in support of Hypothesis 2. Because some companies are successful in exhibit marketing, they allocate more of their marketing budget to shows. Very successful companies allocate 28% of their marketing budget to trade shows compared to 20% or less for those who are less successful. What is surprising is how little very successful companies allocate to field sales, also only 28% compared to 40% or more for less successful companies. Yet when we remember that successful companies also support shows with a more integrated effort, we can conclude that integration comes at the expense of field sales, at least in terms of percentage of marketing budget.
It is important to note, though, that size of the marketing budget is not related to perceptions of success. Very successful exhibitors spend the same amount of money on their marketing program as do less successful companies, which does not support Hypothesis 5. Table 6 presents c2 analysis results concerning budget allocation by level of success. It appears, though, that there may have been some confusion over how the marketing budget was defined. The allocation question included a percentage for sales, but field sales may not have been considered part of the marketing budget by all respondents. Over 60% of respondents report a total marketing budget under US$250,000 per year, which would seem to indicate that most did not include sales in that figure. If that is the case, then successful exhibitors are spending significantly less on sales and marketing overall (approximately US$350,000 compared to US$417,000 on average).1 Again, this does not support Hypothesis 5. In an earlier study [12], it was reported that exhibit management tended to be a function that was given to someone with little experience. One hypothesis then would be that upper management involvement may be an important factor in success. The findings from this study, however, indicate that upper management involvement is equal for those respondents who are very successful and for those are not (for c2 analysis results, see Table 7), which fails to support Hypothesis 6. One factor, though, is that very successful companies are more likely to have an exhibit manager (keep in mind that this person did not fill out the survey — surveys were only included if filled out by a vice-
1 If the number reported did not include sales, then sales costs could be estimated by dividing the total marketing (without sales) budget by 1 minus the percentage allocated to sales. This number was taken by first calculating an average marketing budget, which was estimated to be US $250,000. The average marketing (non-sales) budget was determined by taking averages for each category of responses to the question concerning marketing budget, then weighting each average by the percentage of respondents in that category. The final overall total was determined by dividing that number by the balance of the marketing budget not allocated to sales. So for very successful companies, the total budget was derived by dividing US $250,000 by 0.72, as the amount allocated to sales was 0.28. For not successful companies, US $250,000 was divided by 0.6, or l – 0.4, which was the amount allocated to sales.
234
J.F. Tanner Jr. / Industrial Marketing Management 31 (2002) 229–239
Table 3 Results for promotion objectives Written objectives for show?
Yes No
Very successful (%)
Successful (%)
Unsuccessful (%)
Very unsuccessful (%)
not significant (c2)
40 60
33 67
25 75
40 60
ANOVA ( P value)
Very successful
Successful
Unsuccessful
Very unsuccessful
Mean importance of show objectives
Promotion objectives Introducing new products/services Entering new markets/regions Educating customers about our products services Gaining publicity or press coverage Accumulating competitive information Showing dealers how to effectively promote our products/services Promoting awareness of company and capabilities Handling customer complaints
.0267 .0039 .0065 n.s. n.s. .05
1.4 1.9 2.7 2.4 1.6 3.1
1.6 2.2 2.8 2.3 1.3 3.3
1.9 2.7 3.2 2.6 1.6 3.9
2.5 3.3 4.0 3.5 2.4 3.8
.0213 .0035
1.7 3.3
1.7 3.3
2.1 4.1
3.0 4.8
Sales objectives Meeting key customers Identifying new customers Generating sales leads from existing customers Generating sales leads from new customers Taking orders for products/services Reaching high quality prospects Conducting business with other exhibitors
.0001 .0049 .0069 .0257 .0047 .0002 n.s.
1.5 1.6 1.8 1.9 2.8 1.8 3.5
1.6 1.5 2.0 1.7 3.2 1.8 3.4
2.3 2.0 2.5 2.2 3.7 2.7 3.7
2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 4.5 2.3 4.0
Scale 1 = very important to Scale 5 = not at all important (n = 754).
president or higher). An exhibit manager may be a function of the number of shows. As companies get more successful, they add shows until the point at which an exhibit manager is needed. Or the successful companies may have made a strategic commitment to shows, which is why they needed
an exhibit manager. Whatever the reason, companies that are successful are more likely to have a resident expert in exhibit marketing. As noted earlier, as companies are more successful with trade shows, they exhibit in more trade shows. Furthermore,
Table 4 Results concerning measures of trade shows c2 results ( P value)
Very successful (%)
Successful (%)
Unsuccessful (%)
Very unsuccessful (%)
Quantifiable measures to evaluate trade shows Yes No
.012
70 30
54 46
68 32
80 20
Less quantifiable measures to evaluate shows Yes No
.000
37 63
63 37
58 42
20 80
.001 n.s. .000 n.s. n.s. n.s. .047 .000 n.s.
56 9 32 44 50 15 46 38 7
34 5 13 32 39 10 34 18 4
35 7 8 40 50 10 40 17 3
40 0 0 20 20 20 0 0 0
Percent using measures used to evaluate shows Number of visitors to booth Number of passers-by (not visiting booth) At-show sales Number of sales leads generated from existing customers Number of sales leads generated from new customers Amount of literature distributed Number of quality leads generated at show Post-show sales Press coverage
Figures do not sum to 100% because exhibitors use multiple measures to evaluate shows (n = 763).
J.F. Tanner Jr. / Industrial Marketing Management 31 (2002) 229–239
235
Table 5 Results for marcomm elements used with trade shows
Trade publication advertising Direct mail Field sales PR Telemarketing Other None
c2 ( P value)
Very successful (%)
Successful (%)
Unsuccessful (%)
Very unsuccessful (%)
.002 .019 .09 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.
60 49 69 36 14 4 5
31 45 66 29 19 3 6
33 30 50 25 13 3 8
0 0 60 20 0 0 0
Figures do not sum to 100 because exhibitors may use multiple marcomm elements as part of their show program (n = 766).
of this study provide several important implications for effective use of trade shows, as well as the value of a combined framework that considers objectives and three stages of activity. Yet, a cursory examination of trade show practices indicates few differences between those who believe they are successful and those who reported less successful trade show results. For example, there appears to be little difference in the way decisions are made about which shows to exhibit, how much to spend, and so forth. The differences in practices that lead to greater success are subtle. These differences may begin with greater expertise on how to use trade shows, rather than what to do. For example, an important principle of effective trade show management is to have upper management support. Both successful and less successful companies report similar participation by upper management. Similarly, having both sales and marketing participate in the decision process should result in stronger trade show performance, but the data indicate similar participation by sales and marketing in both successful and less successful companies. One organizational difference is that successful companies are more likely to employ an exhibit manager (see
successful companies are looking for additional shows in which to exhibit, as indicated by their plans to increase the number of shows in which they will exhibit in the next 12 months and over the next 3 years. c2 analysis results concerning growth plans for future exhibiting are found in Table 8. In summary, there are several key findings regarding success. First, success is not a function of budget or upper management involvement, or involvement across departments. Second, success is a function of integrating marketing communications, or successfully applying communications expertise across several communications venues. Finally, those that are successful appear to be more efficient with their marketing dollars than those who are not.
5. Implications The purpose of the study was to find the practices of trade show marketing that can level the playing field for small businesses. Therefore, the findings of greatest importance are those that indicate the difference between successful and unsuccessful trade show performance. The findings
Table 6 Results for budget
Size of budget (n = 757) Under US$250,000 US$250,000 to US$499,999 US$500,000 to US$749,999 US$750,000 to US$999,999 US$1 million to US$4.9 million US$5 million to US$9.9 million US$10 million to US$19.9 million Note: c2 results are not significant.
Very successful (%)
Successful (%)
Unsuccessful (%)
Very unsuccessful (%)
60 19 5 7 8 0 0
62 16 7 6 9 1 0
66 7 5 9 11 2 0
100 0 0 0 0 0 0
18 9 15 45 7 5 3
– – – – – – –
What percentage of marketing budget is devoted to each of the following subjects (n = 758)? Advertising 17 15 Trade showsa ( P= .001) 28 20 Direct mail 9 10 Salesa ( P= .022) 28 40 PR 8 5 Telemarketing 4 6 Other 5 4 a
These ANOVA results are significantly different across groups; all others are not significantly different.
236
J.F. Tanner Jr. / Industrial Marketing Management 31 (2002) 229–239
Table 7 Results for budget processes Very Very successful Successful Unsuccessful unsuccessful (%) (%) (%) (%) Who makes decisions to allocate marketing funds (n = 752)? Management 87 89 90 80 Marketing 68 69 68 20 Sales 68 70 58 60 Exhibit manager 24 17 12 0 c2 results are not significantly different. Results do not sum to 100% as more than one department is often involved in the decision to allocate funds. What function within your company is responsible for the trade show budget (n = 757)? Marketing 22 22 25 0 communications or advertising Sales 43 37 35 80 Marketing 36 36 32 20 Public relations 4 1 0 0 Corporate 25 23 18 40 Other 3 4 3 0 Results do not sum to 100% as more than one department is often involved in the decision to allocate funds. c2 results are not significantly different. Who makes the ultimate decision to exhibit at a trade show (n = 761)? Management 63 69 68 60 Marketing 51 58 52 20 Sales 44 49 47 60 Exhibit manager 10 6 5 0 Results do not sum to 100% as more than one department is often involved in the ultimate decision to exhibit at a specific show. c2 results are not significantly different.
Table 9). Successful companies exhibit in more shows and one can argue the chicken-and-egg question of which comes first, an exhibit manager or enough shows to support an exhibit manager. But recall the findings of Tanner and Chonko [12], who reported that in small manufacturers, trade show responsibility seemed to float from person to person, depending on the location and nature of the show. What appears to be participation by upper management, sales, and marketing in less successful companies is more likely to be floating responsibility. Successful exhibitors know how to do shows better; they have a set of knowledge or expertise resident in someone responsible for the company’s show strategy and program, rather than responsible for a single show. Therefore, an important pair of implications is to first center responsibility for the show program in one person, and then enable that person to develop the expertise necessary to bring success to the show program. While the number of shows to manage for a small business may not require a full-time exhibit-only manager, someone should be designated the responsibility of creating and implementing the exhibit strategy. At the same time, however, it is important to not lose sight of the need for participation by upper management,
sales, and marketing personnel. With the importance of sales objectives, it is wise to offer sales management a voice in the decision process, and an opportunity to comment on the content and style of the message that is being communicated. Similarly, as audiences include current customers, potential investors, and the press, upper management should participate in the process. Without centering strategy in one responsible person, however, it is likely that no real strategy will be created. Successful firms also integrate their trade show program into a multi-channel communication strategy. Successful firms indicated more supporting elements of the marketing mix than did less successful firms. Thus, companies that want to increase the return on their investment in trade shows should consider supporting their shows with direct mail (both pre- and post-show), trade publication advertising, and field sales support. In another study [13], small companies were found to be less likely to use telephone invitations from salespeople than are large companies, for example. Direct mail was also less likely to be used. A study of attendees found that personal invitations from salespeople (either by mail or telephone) were important influences in the decision to attend a show [14]. Yet in this study, successful companies are more likely to support their trade show efforts with direct mail and field sales support than do less successful companies. Field sales must be fully integrated for several reasons. Not only can field sales invite potential attendees to the booth, field salespeople staff the booth and are responsible for following up with leads gained at the show. While Table 8 Results for number of shows Very successful (%)
Successful (%)
Unsuccessful (%)
Very unsuccessful (%)
Number of shows last year (c2 results significant, P = .000, n = 766) 0 2 1 12 40 1 9 13 25 40 2–3 25 36 33 20 4–5 24 21 13 0 6 – 10 18 17 10 0 11 – 14 7 5 2 0 15 – 19 2 4 0 0 20 + 12 3 5 0 100 100 100 100 Trade show plans for the next 12 months (c2 results significant, P = .000, n = 766) More shows 41 25 17 0 Same number 9 12 35 20 Fewer shows 50 63 47 80 Trade show plans for the next 3 years (c2 n = 766) More shows 54 42 Same number 7 9 Fewer shows 25 34 Do not know 14 15
results significant, P = .001, 20 22 32 26
20 0 60 20
J.F. Tanner Jr. / Industrial Marketing Management 31 (2002) 229–239 Table 9 The successful (small company) exhibitor
responsibility for planning and implementing in one person Centers broad participation by upper management, sales, and marketing Enjoys management in the planning process Implements shows as part of a coherent strategy involving multiple channels of communication Integrates field sales in pre-show invitation, booth staffing, and post-show follow-up quantitative measures of performance Develops Capitalizes on expertise centered in one person to exhibit in the same number of shows (as less successful exhibitors) but at a lower cost per show Reaches a higher level of management among potential buyers at the show through coherent pre-show promotion Involves salespeople in planning the booth experience with each visit becoming more like a sales call
salespeople seem to participate at the same level in both successful and less successful organizations, there is a difference in what they do and how they do it. For example, Tanner [11] reported that training can impact booth staff performance, but negatively as well as positively. Informal training slows the time to engage a visitor, reduces the number of closes made by the staff person, and results in more idle chit chat than no training at all. Formal training, however, leads to the fastest time to begin a conversation, a conversation full of specific questions to identify needs, and more than one close during the conversation. These results indicate the importance of doing the right things the right way. Fully integrating salespeople makes sense, given that sales objectives are the most important. Yet quantitative measures of sales success are less likely to be collected by less successful exhibitors. The potential causes of poor measurement can include not developing systems for collecting the data, an unwillingness to quantify poor performance in meeting sales objectives, or similar reasons. Perhaps, the poor measurement of show performance is a function of a lack of show management expertise. Some might argue that their sales cycles are too long to enable measurement of post-show sales. There are methods, however, of estimating post-show sales based on conversion ratios [17]. These ratios require qualifying leads and recording leads in the appropriate categories, though, activities that less successful exhibitors are not fulfilling. Without an expert to design the system of identifying and tracking leads, and without the full cooperation of the sales force, no company can adequately determine if sales objectives are met at the show, Companies successful in their trade show programs are planning to increase their trade show efforts. They also are more likely to allocate marketing budget increases to shows and less likely to allocate decreases to shows. Obviously, when something works, you want to do more of it. With sales objectives just as important to these companies as those who have been less successful, it is interesting to note
237
that these companies spend less on field sales. And, since they spend about the same amount that less successful companies do on trade show marketing, and since they exhibit in two to three times the number of shows, successful companies are significantly more efficient in the use of their overall marketing dollars. So not only are they more successful in gaining sales from their show program, they do so at a lower cost per sale. As a clue to what successful exhibitors do differently, examine Table 2 and their perceptions of trade shows. Successful companies reach a higher level of management among customers, do more networking at shows, and treat the visit more like a sales call. Given their integrative marketing communications plan for exhibit marketing and the full involvement of sales personnel, these companies have a better audience to begin with. Then at the show, they get more accomplished. Rather than wistfully listing sales objectives as the primary reason for attending, they have developed a complete strategy for achieving those objectives. 5.1. Implications for future research This study highlights the importance of understanding the multi-stage nature of trade shows. A primary concern for future research should be the at-show stage and the factors at the show that influence success. For example, at the Motivation Show in September 1999, one company hired a security guard to watch over a drawing for a real diamond. A real diamond was placed in a fishbowl with many fake diamonds, and the security guard added validity to the promotion. Each attendee who drew for a diamond also had their badge scanned so that the company captured a huge list of leads. The line of attendees waiting to draw for the diamond often stretched past two other booths. Little presentation was done at the show, as the only objective was to obtain leads. Future research should consider the relative value of such a promotional stunt, the factors that increase attendee participation in promotional stunts, and the nature of attendee response to such stunts relative to making buying decisions as part of an overall stream of research that considers at-show activities. Dekimpe et al. [15] compared other tactical variables, such as booth size and personnel, across US and UK companies. In that study, more similarities than disparities were found among companies’ experiences across countries. In general, booth size, number of personnel available, and pre-show promotion were major determinants of effectiveness, a finding that replicated the earlier (US-only) findings of Gopalakrishna et al. [4]. What remains to be seen is the explicit relationship between objectives and activities. The two studies just described used attraction measures, or measures relating to the percentage of the desired audience who visited the booth. Many other measures of trade show performance exist (cf. Refs. [16,17]). What is unknown about the
238
J.F. Tanner Jr. / Industrial Marketing Management 31 (2002) 229–239
companies in those studies is the degree to which attraction was a primary objective. While all firms want visitors, the issue of quality of interaction has not been addressed. The companies that participated in the two studies above are also probably more sophisticated users of trade shows than are some of the users in this study, as those companies chose to pay for post-show studies of their program effectiveness (from which the data were drawn). When they specify desired audience characteristics that are then used to calculate attraction effectiveness, they were setting one parameter of performance that should have influenced their at-show activities. Thus, there may be greater relationship between objectives and at-show activities for that sample than what Tanner and Chonko [12] studied. Recall that Tanner and Chonko [12] were unable to see any such relationship in a random sample of small exhibitors. This study does present more finely grained measures of objectives than used by Tanner and Chonko [12] and can motivate research that examines trade shows as a process. Similarly, the influence of measures (such as attraction effectiveness) on activities — i.e. what is measured is what is done — should also be considered. Budgets were found to be similarly distributed among successful and unsuccessful exhibitors in this study. In a study of trade show budgeting, Lilien [18] reported that companies are likely to spend more for trade shows when the product is early in the life cycle, sales are high, sales plans are aggressive, and there is low customer concentration. In this study, customer concentration should be relatively the same, since subjects were drawn at random from the same industries. However, factors such as stage in life cycle, sales rates, and marketing/sales plans were not included. Future research should consider such company factors when examining the company’s trade show program success. In an experimental study of a model of trade show decision processes, expected audience characteristics were the most important factor when deciding to exhibit [19]. The authors of that study summarized several Trade Show Bureau reports to indicate the different roles that top management, marketing management, sales management, and exhibit management play in the trade show decision process. The study, however, did not explicitly examine those roles. In this study, the roles were not quite as expected, with corporate marketing having less authority over the show selection than top management. However, the difference may reflect a difference in the size of companies used in this study. Kijewski et al. [19] also call for research that examines the role of other communication vehicles to promote visiting a booth. This study does consider the contribution of advertising, direct mail, and other forms of marketing communication to perceptions of success. Like the studies involving attraction efficiency [4,15], this study does find that pre-show promotion does influence success. The next step, it would seem, would be to relate pre-show promotion
objectives to overall show objectives, and to determine factors that influence the use of pre-show promotion. For example, Lilien’s [18] study of factors influencing trade show budget size could be considered as a starting point for understanding the role of pre-show promotion. Further, from a theoretical perspective, it may be useful to distinguish between perceptions of success and actual success. General measures were used here in order to understand managers’ motivations for their actions and programs. Future research may consider the relationship between expectations (objectives), results, and perceptions, as part of an ongoing marketing communication strategy. Similarly, Rice [20] raised the chicken-and-egg question of perceptions of success and investment in shows. Clearly, the desire of successful exhibitors to increase show participation (as reported in Table 8) is due to their experience of success. While she was discussing trade show practices in international arenas, though, her proposition that managers with positive attitudes about shows will invest more in shows could not be supported by this study, as successful and unsuccessful companies spent the same overall on trade shows. What needs to be studied is the evolution of marketing strategy, as budgets are allocated and re-allocated based on success, or the lack thereof.
6. Conclusion Companies who successfully develop integrated marketing communication programs emphasizing trade shows do so because shows create sales — at least for them. These companies create a competitive advantage through their use of shows in two ways. First, they are twice as likely to close sales from their trade show exposure, so they gain the advantage of increase in sales. Second, the data indicate that they are able to gain these sales more efficiently, at a lower cost per sale. They also obtain two to three times the exposure because they can exhibit in more shows at the same cost. On the surface, there appears to be little difference in how they go about achieving these competitive advantages. Close examination of the data, though, indicate that they have additional expertise that enables them to make better use of their show experience. In addition, responsibility and authority for show operations and success are centered within someone who has and can develop that expertise. The data clearly indicate that success is not based on a preference for shows, but rather on the performance of activities that lead to success. Less successful companies can level the trade show playing field by identifying someone in the organization to take on the exhibit marketing responsibility, then providing that person with the opportunity to develop the necessary expertise to develop a coordinated marketing communication plan that will lead the program to success.
J.F. Tanner Jr. / Industrial Marketing Management 31 (2002) 229–239
Acknowledgments This research was made possible by grants from the Center for Exhibition Industry Research and the Trade Show Exhibitors Education Foundation.
References [1] Bellizzi JA, Lipps DJ. Managerial guidelines for trade show effectiveness. Ind Mark Manage 1984;13:49 – 52. [2] O’Hara B, Palumbo F, Herbig P. Industrial trade shows abroad. Ind Mark Manage 1993;22:233 – 7. [3] Carman JM. Evaluation of trade show exhibitions. Calif Manage Rev 1968;XI(2):35 – 44 (Winter). [4] Gopalakrishna S, Lilien G, Williams J, Sequiera I. Do trade shows pay off ? J Mark 1995;59:75 – 84 (July). [5] Tanner JF, Chonko LB, Ponzurisk T. Trade shows as learning activities: a learning approach to marketing communications. Baylor University Center for Professional Selling. Working Paper Series, 1998. [6] Kerin RA, Cron WL. Assessing trade show functions and performance: an exploratory study. J Mark 1987;59:87 – 94 (July). [7] Hansen K. Trade show performance: a conceptual framework and its implications for future research. Acad Mark Sci Rev 1999 (Online), amsreview.org/amsrev/theory/hansen08-99.html. [8] Gopalakrishna S, Lilien G. A three-stage model of industrial trade show performance. Mark Sci 1995;14:22 – 42 (Winter).
239
[9] Rosson PJ, Seringhaus FHR. Visitor and exhibitor interaction at industrial trade fairs. J Bus Res 1995;32:81 – 90. [10] Williams DJ, Gopalakrishna S, Cox JM. Trade show guidelines for smaller firms. Ind Mark Manage 1993;22:265 – 75. [11] Tanner JF. Adaptive selling at trade shows. J Pers Selling Sales Manage 1994;22:15 – 23 (Spring). [12] Tanner JF, Chonko LB. Trade shows objectives, management, and staffing practices. Ind Mark Manage 1995;22:257 – 64. [13] Tanner JF, Chonko LB. Using trade shows throughout the product life cycle, Center for Exhibition Industry Research Report SM2S, 1996. [14] Tanner JF, Chonko LB. What trade show attendees want from direct mail, Center for Exhibition Industry Research Report, 5M31, 1994. [15] Dekimpe M, Francois P, Gopalakrishna S, Lilien G, Van den Bulte C. Generalizing about trade show effectiveness: a cross-national comparison. J Mark 1997;61:55 – 64. [16] Sashi CM, Peretty J. Do trade shows provide value? Ind Mark Manage 1992;25:249 – 55. [17] Dwyer RA, Tanner JF. Business marketing: connecting strategy, relationships, and learning. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 1999. [18] Lilien GL. A descriptive model of the trade-show budgeting decision process. Ind Mark Manage 1983;12:25 – 9. [19] Kijewski V, Yoon E, Young G. How exhibitors select trade shows. Ind Mark Manage 1993;22:287 – 98. [20] Rice G. Using the interaction approach to understand international trade shows. Int Mark Rev 1992;9:32 – 45. Jeff Tanner (PhD, University of Georgia) is the Associate Dean for Undergraduate Programs and Associate Professor of Marketing at the Hankamer School of Business, Baylor University.