Relationship quality between exhibitors and organizers: A perspective from Mainland China's exhibition industry

International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 1222–1234

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

International Journal of Hospitality Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhosman

Relationship quality between exhibitors and organizers: A perspective from Mainland China’s exhibition industry Xin Jin a , Karin Weber b,∗ , Thomas Bauer b a b

Department of Tourism, Leisure, Hotel and Sports Management, Griffith Business School, Gold Coast Campus, Griffith University, Parklands Drive, Southport, Qld 4215, Australia School of Hotel & Tourism Management, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China

a r t i c l e Keywords: Exhibitions Relationship quality China

i n f o

a b s t r a c t Despite the fact that many destinations around the world have invested significant resources to build large-scale exhibition centers and host exhibitions to gain both economic and non-economic benefits (e.g., Jago and Deery, 2010), there is a paucity of research on exhibitions in general, and on the relationships among key stakeholders in particular. This study aims to address this research gap by investigating the relationship between exhibitors and exhibition organizers in view of its potential to significantly affect the success of a particular exhibition, and in the broader context the success of exhibition destinations. A survey collected 616 responses from exhibitors exhibiting at nine trade fairs in four cities in Mainland China. Study findings confirmed that exhibitors’ relationship quality with organizers is a second-order construct composed of four factors: (1) service quality and relationship satisfaction, (2) trust and affective commitment, (3) communication, and (4) calculative commitment. Furthermore, perceived relationship quality differed significantly, depending on key characteristics of organizers and exhibitors. Potential reasons that might contribute to these differences are explored and implications are discussed. © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Despite the fact that many destinations around the world have invested significant resources to build large-scale exhibition centers and host exhibitions to gain both economic and non-economic benefits (e.g., Jago and Deery, 2010), there is a paucity of research on exhibitions in general, and on the relationships among key stakeholders in particular. This is rather surprising since (1) the success of an exhibition depends on the close coordination of organizers and exhibitors with potential visitors (Kresse, 2005), and (2) the role organizers play in the industry has been evolving as a result of the gradual transformation of the function and operation of exhibitions. In recent decades, exhibitions are less a place for buyers and visitors to place orders on the basis of samples, instead, “this ordering function has increasingly given way to an information and communication function” (Stoeck and Schraudy, 2005, p. 202). In the past, organizers focused on selling exhibition floor space to exhibitors, acquiring visitors, and providing optimal settings for participants. Consequently, the traditional relationship between organizers and exhibitors was confined temporally to the duration of the exhibition and limited in scope to the exchanges taking place during the event.

∗ Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (K. Weber). 0278-4319/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2012.02.012

However, with exhibitions having become information and communication tools, organizers now need to spot industry trends, develop innovative exhibition concepts in line with market requirements, and help exhibitors establish lasting communication with their customers (Heckmann, 2005). Stoeck and Schraudy (2005, p. 204) identified five key benefit organizers have to offer to exhibitors to ensure the lasting success of their exhibitions, namely: (1) working as all-year-round ‘hubs’ for the markets they serve, (2) becoming the information brokers in their industry by filtering and structuring key information, making it available quickly and at low cost, (3) becoming the “mouthpiece” for their market, communicating the concerns of market players in a way that catches public attention, (4) offering one-stop shopping for complete packages of target group-specific communication services with minimal coverage loss, and (5) setting the scene for their whole industry, enabling the industry to attract the attention it needs, even in an age of information overload. In practice, organizers aim to satisfy these new market demands by cooperating with industry associations to better understand the industry; setting up dedicated business-to-business (B2B) websites or using other regular direct/indirect marketing and updated social media mechanisms to facilitate communication with different stakeholder groups. The evolving function of exhibition organizers has already and will continue to make an impact on exhibition operation and exhibitor behavior as well as the relationship between organizers and exhibitors.

X. Jin et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 1222–1234

1223

Table 1 Major empirical studies on exhibitions from 1974 to 2010. Topics

Perspectives Organizers

Exhibition selection

Performance

Management

Effectiveness

Luo (2007)

Exhibitors

Visitors/attendees

Berne and García-Uceda (2008), Kijewski et al. (1993), Rice and Almossawi (2002) and Tanner et al. (2001) Blythe (2002), Bonoma (1983), Chiou et al. (2007), Chonko et al. (1994), Dekimpe et al. (1997), Friedmann (2002), Gopalakrishna and Cox (1993), Gopalakrishna and Lilien (1995), Hansen (1999), Kerin and Cron (1987), Li (2007), Li (2006), Hansen (2004), Tanner (2002), Seringhaus and Rosson (2001), Sharland and Balogh (1996) and Shoham (1999) Motwani et al. (1992), Pitta et al. (2006), Sashi and Perretty (1992), Shipley et al. (1993) and Tanner et al. (2001) Blythe (1999), Blythe and Rayner (1996), Dekimpe et al. (1997), Gopalakrishna and Williams (1992), Herbig et al. (1997), O’Hara (1993), Smith et al. (2003) and Tanner (2002)

Berne and García-Uceda (2008), Shoham (1992) and Smith et al. (2003)

Buyer behavior

Service quality

Visiting objectives

Exhibitor behavior Exhibitor and visitor profile Marketing function and strategy Economic impact and benefits Satisfaction HR Virtual exhibition Spatial distribution

Munuera and Ruiz (1999)

Bello and Lohtia (1993)

Borghini et al. (2006), Bello (1992) and Rosson and Seringhaus (1995) Breiter and Milman (2006), Chonko et al. (1994), Dickinson and Faria (1985), Gopalakrishna and Williams (1992), Parasuraman et al. (1985, 1988), Tanner et al. (2001), Smith et al. (2003) and Jung (2005) Kozak (2005), Hansen (1996), Smith and Smith (1999)

Bello et al. (1986), Herbig et al. (1997), Hultsman (2001) and Rosson and Seringhaus (1995) Herbig et al. (1997) Friedmann (2002), Hansen (1999) and Pitta et al. (2006) Palumbo and Herbig (2002) and Poorani (1996)

Bauer et al. (2008), Godar and O’Connor (2001), Hansen (1996) and Smith et al. (2003)

Berne and García-Uceda (2008) (Non-attendance)

Palumbo and Herbig (2002) and Bauer et al. (2008)

Jung (2005) and Wu et al. (2006) Breiter and Gregory (2003), Gregory and Breiter (2001) and McCabe (2008) Edgar (2002), Lee-Kelley et al. (2004) and Wu et al. (2004) Rubalcaba-Bermejo and Cuadrado-Roura (1995, 1997)

Source: Compiled by authors.

Contrasting these recent industry developments with the current focus of academic research, it is noted that to date no studies have explored the transformed relationship between organizers and exhibitors. The majority of current studies on exhibitions has focused on issues relating to exhibitors’ and visitors’ exhibition participation, such as exhibiting and visiting objectives (e.g., Hansen, 2004; Kijewski et al., 1993; Kozak, 2005), exhibition selection (e.g., Berne and García-Uceda, 2008; Kijewski et al., 1993; Shoham, 1992; Tanner et al., 2001), performance (e.g., Blythe, 2002; Li, 2007), effectiveness (e.g., Dekimpe et al., 1997; Tanner, 2002), exhibitor and visitor behavior (e.g., Herbig et al., 1997; Rosson and Seringhaus, 1995), service quality and satisfaction (e.g., Bauer et al., 2008; Jung, 2005). Relative to research focusing on exhibitors, studies from the visitors’ perspective are few, and Luo (2007) noting a general lack of studies from the organizer perspective (see Table 1 for a summary of key studies on exhibitions published in major English-language trade, marketing and hospitality journals from 1974 until 2010). Common to all these studies is that they examine individual key players’ perspectives on specific issues in isolation, thus, there is a distinct lack of studies exploring the various relationships between the three key players in the exhibition context, namely, exhibition organizers, exhibitors and visitors. The current study aims to

address this gap in academic research and consider recent industry trends by examining the relationship between exhibition organizers and exhibitors. Asia’s largest exhibition market, Mainland China, was considered a suitable setting to explore this relationship for a number of reasons. First, the country’s exhibition industry has experienced rapid growth in the past decades. China has more than 240 exhibition centers (Kay, 2005), with indoor exhibition space totaling more than 2.5 million square meters in 2007, the third largest in scale globally (UFI, 2007). About 4000 exhibitions of varying scales are held annually. Second, such a scale and growth potential have attracted not only domestic but also international players. Strong, long-term relationships with key players are of vital importance to operate successfully, particularly for international players faced with a very different business, cultural and political environment. Third, China’s exhibition market exhibits several characteristics that present challenges not only for international but also for domestic players. It is facing consolidation and restructuring, becoming increasingly mature and selective (Chan, 2008, 2005; Erwin, 2005). The ownership of exhibitions and operating models vary (Kay, 2005, 2007). Studies also indicate that some organizers display opportunistic behavior, resulting in low quality exhibitions,

1224

X. Jin et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 1222–1234

conflicts between exhibitors and organizers, and even fraud in exhibitor acquisition (Wang, 2007). Common problems include: (1) a local exhibition is promoted as ‘international’, or under the name of ‘China,’ thereby misleading exhibitors; (2) a promised specialized exhibition turns out to be an assorted one, lacking buyers for specific industries; and (3) the promised exhibition site turns out to be a different venue. Consequently, trust, communication, commitment, service quality and relationship satisfaction – dimensions typically associated with relationship quality – are of critical importance in the selected context. The current study is part of a larger research project that draws on relationship marketing theory to explore relationship quality in the exhibition context. The research project aims to examine exhibitors’ perceptions of the quality of their relationship with exhibition organizers, with a focus on three specific objectives, namely to

2. Literature review

operational models result in the involvement of a wide variety of organizing entities in the sales process. While some commentators advocate greater involvement of distributors (e.g., Wang, 2007; Wismer and Schutte, 2005), others believe that exhibition organizers should engage in direct communication with both exhibitors and visitors, and build relationships with key accounts in the two segments (e.g., Chan, 2005). The fact that exhibitors and visitors, as ‘buyers’ of the ‘exhibition product’ that the exhibition organizer ‘sells’, are themselves the main components of the ‘product’ constructs a complicated buying–selling relationship between the exhibition organizer, and exhibitors and visitors respectively. The buying–selling relationship is influenced by the relationship between the two customer segments. It is the duty of organizers to facilitate the relationshipbuilding between the two segments at different stages of an event: pre-event, on-site and post-event. Relationship quality captures the perceived relationship with organizers from the perspective of exhibitors. The organizing company is the party that initiates the relationship marketing effort in the hope of strengthening its relationship with exhibitors that in turn is likely to lead them to attend future exhibitions and continue their relationship with the exhibition organizer. Yet, despite the importance of relationship marketing efforts to improve the quality of relationships between key exhibition industry players, only one study to date has explored the quality of relationships between exhibition organizers and exhibitors. AWFRP (2010) conducted 32 in-depth interviews with exhibitors to explore their perceptions of whether they consider relationship building with exhibition organizers important and if so, what constitutes quality in their relationship with organizers. The findings confirmed the importance of perceived relationship quality in the exhibition context. They also provided support for various dimensions of relationship quality previously identified in the literature. Five dimensions in particular are considered critical by exhibitors when assessing the quality of their relationship with exhibition organizers. The next section provides a brief summary of studies that examined what constitutes relationship quality in the broader marketing context before then focusing on a discussion, both in general and specific to exhibitions, of each of these five dimensions of relationship quality.

2.1. Relationship quality in the exhibition context

2.2. Relationship quality dimensions

Relationship marketing has been defined as “all marketing activities directed towards establishing, developing, and maintaining successful relational exchanges” (Morgan and Hunt, 1994, p. 22). Researchers have recognized that relationship marketing is more conducive to generating positive outcomes under certain conditions (Anderson and Narus, 1991), with Palmatier et al. (2006) arguing that it is especially effective in the context of service-based exchanges, in business markets, and if transactions are conducted via multiple channels. Given that the exhibition sector possesses all three characteristics, relationship marketing and building strong relationships should be very effective in this context. First, the ‘exhibition product’ is an ‘experience and information exchange’ serviced by the exhibition company to its business customers in business markets. It is crucial for an exhibition company/organizer to build a strong relationship with its business customers to sustain subsequent exhibitions. Second, all transactions take place in business markets. Exhibitors as ‘customers’ of exhibition companies are ‘business entities’ rather than individual consumers. Thus, the relationships between exhibition organizers and exhibitors are B2B rather than B2C, with relationships between the two customer segments, visitors and exhibitors, being B2B as well. Third, the distribution of this ‘experience product’ is through multiple channels (e.g., agents, chambers of commerce, trade associations), with the exhibition organizer playing a pivotal role. Different event

Numerous studies have empirically tested relationship quality in various research contexts, as well as its antecedents and outcomes, using a wide range of mediating variables. Researchers disagree on which relational mediators best capture the characteristics of a relational exchange, eventually influencing performance. Morgan and Hunt (1994) propose trust and commitment as key mediating variables. Some researchers argue that either trust (e.g., Kim and Smith, 2007) or commitment alone is the critical relational construct (e.g., Stanko et al., 2007). Other researchers use relationship quality as a global construct, believing that this higher-order construct, which is reflected by a combination of commitment, trust, relationship satisfaction, and other variables, best assesses relationship strength, and consequent exchange performance (e.g., Crosby et al., 1990; Kumar et al., 1995; Walter et al., 2003). Kumar et al. (1995) added commitment and conflict to their conceptualization of relationship quality, while Hennig-Thurau and Klee (1997) and Moorman et al. (1992) added perceived service quality. Dorsch et al. (1998) utilized opportunism, customer orientation, and ethical profile to define relationship quality. In contrast, Walter et al. (2003) stressed that relationship satisfaction should be an indicator of relationship quality, apart from trust and commitment. Similarly, Rauyruen and Miller (2007) used four dimensions – trust, satisfaction, commitment and service quality – as determinants of relationship quality in a B2B environment. These authors also

1 explore what constitutes relationship quality with exhibition organizers from the exhibitors’ perspective; 2 develop measurements for relationship quality in the exhibition context; and 3 assess potential differences in relationship quality perceptions, depending on key characteristics of organizers and exhibitors. In order to address these research objectives, two studies were conducted sequentially. Study 1 employed a qualitative approach in the form of 32 in-depth interviews with exhibitors to explore their perceptions of what constitutes relationship quality. On the basis of the findings of Study 1, measures of relationship quality in the exhibition context were developed and tested by conducting Study 2, a large-scale survey of 616 exhibitors; in addition to developing appropriate measures, differences in perceptions of relationship quality were also examined. Study 1 has been discussed in detail elsewhere (Authorship withheld for review process (Jin, 2011)); the focus of this paper is on reporting the findings of Study 2.

X. Jin et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 1222–1234

1225

Table 2 Recent empirical studies on relationship quality. Author

Context

Antecedents

Mediating variables

Outcomes

Abdul-Muhmin (2005)

B2B

Satisfaction Commitment

Propensity to terminate relationships

Gounaris (2005)

B2B

Satisfaction with product Benevolence Credibility Opportunism Service quality Bonding

Maintain relations Invest in relations

Huntley (2006)

B2B

Trust Affective and calculative Commitment Relationship quality

Johnson and Grayson (2005)

B2C

Keh and Xie (2009)

B2C

Kim and Cha (2002)

Hotel

Kim et al. (2006)

B2C

Kim and Smith (2007) Rauyruen and Miller (2007)

Child-care Industry B2B

Stanko et al. (2007)

B2B

Goal congruity Trust Commitment Service provider expertise Product performance Firm reputation Satisfaction with previous interactions Similarity Corporate reputation

Customer orientation Relational orientation Mutual disclosure Service provider attributes Food quality Employee customer Orientation Communication Relationship benefits Price fairness Service quality (hard, soft) Service quality Commitment Trust Satisfaction Relationship length Emotional intensity Mutual confiding Reciprocal services

Affective versus Cognitive Trust (at consumer and interpersonal level)

Willingness to recommend Service sales Product sales Sales effectiveness Anticipation of future interactions

Trust Commitment Identification Relationship quality (with trust and satisfaction as 2nd order construct)

Purchase intention Price premium

Relationship quality (with trust, satisfaction as 2nd order construct)

Loyalty Commitment Word of Mouth

Satisfaction Trust Relationship quality at both employee and corporate levels

Word of Mouth

Commitment

Share of purchase Relationship continuity Word of Mouth

Purchase intentions Attitudinal loyalty

Favorable buyer purchase behavior

Source: Compiled by authors.

developed several scales to measure trust, commitment, satisfaction and perceived quality. Finally, De Wulf et al. (2001) studied the antecedents of perceived relationship investment and their effects on relationship quality in a cross-country/industry context. Their findings indicate that four forms of investment (direct mail, preferential treatment, interpersonal communication, and tangible rewards) exert varied influence depending on the country and industrial sectors. Whatever form, perceived relationship investment positively influences relationship quality. Table 2 provides a summary of recent empirical studies on mediating variables in relationship marketing that used structural models to test the relationships among antecedents, mediators and outcomes. Based on in-depth interviews with 32 exhibitors, AWFRP (2010) identified five key dimensions that exhibitors considered critical in assessing the quality of their relationship with an exhibition organizer, namely (1) trust, (2) commitment, (3) communication, (4) service quality and (5) relationship satisfaction. Collectively, these five dimensions were found to represent relationship quality in the exhibition context, leading AWFRP (2010) to propose that relationship quality is a second-order construct, consistent with arguments advanced by Lages et al. (2008) and Rauyruen and Miller (2007). 2.2.1. Trust Trust has been described in numerous ways. For example, Morgan and Hunt (1994, p. 23) defined trust as “confidence in an exchange partner’s reliability and integrity,” and consisting of benevolence and honesty. Walter et al. (2003, p. 161) extended the scope of trust by stating that “trust constitutes the belief, attitude

or expectation of a party that the relationship partner’s behavior or its customers will be for the trusting party’s own benefit.” They argued that trust has three essential components: goodwill, competence, and honesty of the relationship partner. The development of trust is the core of any successful relationship with customers, which depends on shared values, communication and non-opportunistic behavior (Morgan and Hunt, 1994). In the indepth interviews conducted by AWFRP (2010), exhibitors identified trust as the single most important dimension of relationship quality with exhibition organizers, with trust being based on organizers’ integrity/honesty, both at the organizational and employee level (Rauyruen and Miller, 2007), and their competence in organizing high-quality exhibitions beneficial to exhibitors. 2.2.2. Commitment Commitment is defined as “a desire to develop a stable relationship” and “a confidence in the stability of the relationship,” (Anderson and Weitz, 1989; p. 19). In a business relationship, commitment refers to a strong attitude formed concerning the continuation of a relationship with a business partner (Wetzels et al., 1998). Some researchers regard commitment as a dimension of global relationship quality (e.g., Abdul-Muhmin, 2005; Rauyruen and Miller, 2007), whereas other researchers treat commitment independently (e.g., Stanko et al., 2007). In AWFRP’s (2010) study, exhibitors identified commitment as a critical dimension of relationship quality, immediately after trust in an exhibition organizer. Interestingly, two different types of commitment emerged from the interviews, with exhibitors on the one hand expressing a desire

1226

X. Jin et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 1222–1234

to maintain a relationship because they like the organizer, regard their relationship as a partnership, and thus, feel a sense of loyalty and belonging. On the other hand, exhibitors alluded to the need to maintain a relationship with a particular organizer, as otherwise they may compromise access to a preferred booth location (something that cannot be obtained with money alone) or a lack of suitable alternative exhibitions. Consequently, exhibitors appeared to make a distinction between affective and calculative commitment (e.g., Cater and Zabkar, 2009; Rauyruen and Miller, 2007). 2.2.3. Communication Communication is defined as the informal and formal sharing of reliable and meaningful information between exchange partners (Anderson and Narus, 1991). The quality of communication and information exchange is one of the most significant characteristics of business relationships (Mohr et al., 1996). Macneil (1978) argued that proactively sharing information is essential to the success of a relationship, something that according to Mohr and Spekman (1994) holds B2B marketing relationships together. It was also identified as one of the dimensions for a second-order construct of ‘relationship quality’ (Lages et al., 2008; Phan et al., 2005). Communication was also regarded as a vital dimension of relationship quality in the exhibition context (AWFRP, 2010), with exhibitors stressing the importance of the quality of information they receive from exhibition organizers in terms of criticality, accuracy, and credibility. In addition, the frequency of information exchange was considered important, especially after exhibitors had made a financial commitment to attend a particular exhibition. 2.2.4. Service quality Crosby et al. (1990) stated that service quality is relevant to services marketing of both a transactional and relational nature. It can be considered a necessary, but in itself insufficient, condition for relationship quality. Numerous studies measure service quality based on Parasuraman et al.’s (1985) SERVQUAL, which has five main dimensions, namely tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy. Early works have used the expectancy disconfirmation theory which measures the gap between perceptions and expectations; from the 1990s onwards, perception-only measures of service quality dominate the services marketing literature – evidence suggests that perception-only measures are more psychometrically vigorous (Jayawardhena et al., 2007). AWFRP (2010) found that service quality in the exhibition context related to several aspects of exhibition organizers’ service performance throughout the pre-, on-site and post-exhibition stage. Of particular importance to interviewed exhibitors was the quality of services provided on-site, with the exhibition organizer expected to quickly resolve a range of logistic problems that may occur and to protect exhibitors from visitors who attend an exhibition to copy exhibited products and take unauthorized photos of samples. 2.2.5. Relationship satisfaction Relationship satisfaction has been regarded as a key dimension of relationship quality in the relationship marketing literature (e.g., Kim et al., 2006; Morgan and Hunt, 1994). It describes a customer’s affective or emotional state towards a relationship. Anderson and Narus (2004, p. 66) defined relationship satisfaction as “a positive affective state resulting from the appraisal of all aspects of a firm’s working relationship with another firm.” Palmatier et al. (2006) argued that relationship satisfaction shall reflect exclusively customers’ satisfaction with the relationship and thus, is different from customers’ satisfaction with the overall exchange. AWFRP (2010) found that exhibitors regarded relationship satisfaction as an important element in evaluating the quality of their relationship

with an exhibition organizer, and that even though they may have been dissatisfied with a particular service episode throughout their relationship, they were still satisfied with their relationship with the organizer overall. Relationship satisfaction with an organizer also led exhibitors to recommend attending a particular exhibition to other business partners. Based on an extensive review of the relationship marketing literature with regard to relationship mediators (constituents of relationship quality as a second-order factor), and the findings of the in-depth interviews with 32 exhibitors (AWFRP, 2010), this paper proposes the following hypothesis: H1. Exhibitors’ relationship quality with organizers is a second-order construct comprised of five factors: (1) trust, (2) commitment, (3) communication, (4) service quality, and (5) relationship satisfaction. With Mainland China having been chosen as the setting of this study, and given its particular characteristics and current challenges, and based on the findings by AWFRP (2010), it is expected that there are differences in perceptions of relationship quality, leading to the following proposition: P1. Relationship quality with organizers differs, depending on key characteristics of organizers and exhibitors. 3. Methodology 3.1. Sample This study employed a quantitative approach and collected 616 responses from exhibitors exhibiting at nine trade fairs hosted in four cities in Mainland China–Shanghai, Hangzhou, Wuhan and Nanjing, preceded by a pilot test surveying 214 exhibitors at an exhibition in Guangzhou. A sampling frame was identified by obtaining a comprehensive list of exhibitions hosted in China in 2009 via portal exhibition websites. Sampled exhibitions took place between September 2009 and December 2009, and were selected based on organizer and host destination category, geographical location and dates. The primary consideration was to sample both international and national exhibitions of diverse ownerships, staged in venues in both first and second-tier cities, and covering varied industry sectors to ensure representativeness. The pilot test and main survey sampled altogether 10 exhibitions in two first-tier cities and three second-tier cities in China’s Yangtze River and Pearl River Delta – two areas where exhibitions are most developed in China. Given the leading position of these destinations in China’s exhibition industry, the sampled exhibitions and destinations can be considered representative of the population, with non-observation errors being low. 3.2. Data collection A face-to-face survey was deemed appropriate and had numerous advantages over mail, and online surveys (Baruch, 1999). With the support of exhibition organizers, the lead author and 24 trained survey helpers were able to approach exhibitors on-site to conduct the surveys at the selected exhibitions. After arriving at each exhibition center, the helpers were assigned to different halls or areas at the exhibition center to ensure systematic coverage of exhibiting booths. Each single exhibition booth (one exhibiting firm) was treated as one respondent. Interviewers were instructed to approach exhibitors booth by booth, covering booths of varying sizes and geographic origins. Questionnaire completion took around 15–20 min. The response rate ranged from 70% to 90% in different exhibitions. No incentives were utilized.

X. Jin et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 1222–1234

3.3. Instrument The questionnaire was divided into introduction, respondent profile, questions about relationship quality and other variables of interest (not discussed in the context of this paper). Questionnaire design considered several factors, including a user-friendly format, simplicity of language, and means to reduce response bias. To avoid response set bias, several items were negatively phrased or reversely scaled, and items under each section were mixed independent of their proposed sub-dimensions. The questionnaire was first developed in English, then translated into Chinese and then back into English, adopting a back-to-back translation procedure. Translations were conducted by two professional translators; both were native Chinese speakers with many years of experience in translation. Only Chinese questionnaires were used in the pilot test; both English and Chinese questionnaires were utilized in the main survey. Measurements were either adapted from the relationship marketing literature or developed via in-depth interviews. The construct ‘communication’ (CO) was adapted from Coote et al. (2003) and Lages et al. (2005) to measure the frequency and quality of communication between organizers and exhibiting firms initiated by organizers. Measures for the ‘trust’ (TT) construct were adapted from Garbarino and Johnson (1999), Liu et al. (2008), and Huntley (2006). These items mainly measured the reliability and benevolence of the trustees (that is, the organizers). Affective commitment (AC) items were adapted from Coote et al. (2003), Gustafsson et al. (2005), and Stanko et al. (2007). Calculative commitment (CC) measures were adapted from Geyskens et al. (1996), Gounaris (2005), Gustafsson et al. (2005), and Kumar et al. (1995) which cover the practical, economic, administrative, and location concerns of exhibitors. The ‘service quality’ (SQ) measures were derived from interviews with exhibitors (AWFRP, 2010). The ‘relationship satisfaction’ (RS) measures were adapted from Abdul-Muhmin (2005) and Huntley (2006). A 7-point Likert scale indicating a level of agreement ranging from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (7) was utilized for all measurements. 3.4. Data analysis Data was analyzed utilizing factor analysis and independent sample t-tests. First, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted to explore the dimensionality of the variables, followed by Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). The main survey data was randomly split into two subsets: one calibration sample with 294 cases for EFA analysis and one validation sample with 293 cases for 1storder CFA analysis, with the entire main survey data being used for 2nd-order CFA. This was based on Hair and colleagues’ (2006) argument that CFA is the most direct method of validating the results of EFA and that if sample size permits, the sample may be split into two subsets to estimate a factor model for each subset. Comparison of the two resulting factor matrices provided an assessment of the robustness of the solution across the sample. Differences in relationship quality variables were assessed based on three groups: (1) exhibitions organized by international organizers versus those organized by Chinese organizers; (2) exhibitions organized by private companies (including both international and national companies) versus those organized by government-affiliates; and (3) first-time versus repeat exhibitors. 4. Results 4.1. Sample profile Table 3 provides a summary of the characteristics of the sample, both at the aggregate and venue-specific level, as the latter

1227

can disclose more detailed information about the subjects in each exhibition. At the aggregate level, about half of the sample was from medium-sized enterprises with 50–300 employees. Smaller enterprises with less than 50 employees and larger enterprises with more than 300 employees accounted for approximately 25% each, although this differed slightly among the sampled exhibitions. This is consistent with the nature of the exhibition industry in China, which serves predominantly as a marketing platform for SMEs (e.g., Zitzewitz, 2005). About one-third of the respondents were first-time exhibitors, yet again, this figure fluctuated among different exhibitions. In terms of annual exhibition attendance in China, aggregately, more than 80% of firms attended more than two exhibitions per annum. Approximately 36% of firms exhibiting in SNIEC stated that they only attended this one exhibition per annum, while this figure decreased in other shows. In contrast, a sizable number of firms stated that they attended more than 4 exhibitions per annum in China. In terms of global exhibition attendance, many firms exhibited more than 3 times per annum at overseas exhibitions. The frequency indicates different level of participation/commitment to the sampled exhibitions. 4.2. Relationship quality dimensions 4.2.1. EFA EFA was conducted twice using the pilot sample (n = 214) and the calibration sample (n = 294). For brevity, only EFA results of the calibration sample of the main survey data are reported here (Table 4). A four-factor solution explaining 63.4% of the total variance was generated, which differed somewhat from conceptualizations suggested in previous literature. First, variables loading onto communication and calculative commitment were as suggested as in the literature. Second, items proposed for trust and affective commitment loaded onto one factor, while items proposed for service quality and satisfaction loaded onto another factor. There was a high degree of similarity between results of the main study and those of the pilot test. The reliability coefficient values of the four factors were: trust and affective commitment (0.906), service quality and satisfaction (0.946), communication (0.808), and calculative commitment (0.711), indicating internal consistency of the dimensions (Field, 2005). Factor loadings for all variables are higher than 0.4. Since Cronbach’s alphas exceeded 0.7 for all four factors generated, internal consistency of the measurements is confirmed statistically (Field, 2005). The analysis was also robust with four factors explaining 63.4% of the total variance; the KMO was 0.962 and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was highly significant (p < 0.000). 4.2.2. First-order CFA of relationship quality CFA was conducted to verify the 4-factor solution with the 293case validation sample. In this model, the four factors were specified as latent variables which correlate with one another, and the items loaded on them were specified as indicators to measure the latent variables. Following Hair et al.’s (2006) guideline that a good rule of thumb for factor loadings is 0.5 or higher (ideally 0.7 or higher), items with factors loadings lower than 0.5 were deleted from further analyses. Table 5 presents the results of first-order CFA of the relationship quality construct. Results indicate that the measurement model fits the data well (2 = 509.599, df = 224, p < 0.001, 2 /df = 2.275, GFI = 0.866, AGFI = 0.835, CFI = 0.936; RMSEA = 0.066). The CR values for three of the four latent variables are 0.94, 0.91, and 0.80 respectively, demonstrating excellent internal validity of the factors. One dimension (calculative commitment) has a CR value of 0.60, barely meeting the cut-off point of 0.60 (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988; Diamantopoulos and Siguaw, 2000). With regard to factor loadings, only four out of the 23 indicators have a factor loading lower than 0.7, resulting in SMC values lower than 0.4, indicating that less than 40% of variances in these indicators were explained by the latent

1228

X. Jin et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 1222–1234

Table 3 Sample characteristics. Characteristics

Venue-wise

Venue

SNIEC No.

Size of the company Less than 50 employees 50–300 employees More than 300 employees Total (listwise)

43 83 51

Overall sample INTEX

Percent 24.3 46.9 28.8

177

No. 32 76 39

EVERBRIGHT

WHCEC

PEACE

Percent

No.

Percent

No.

Percent

No.

Percent

21.8 51.7 26.5

9 30 13

17.3 57.7 25.0

11 18 16

24.4 40.0 35.6

28 40 13

34.6 49.4 16.0

147

52

Times exhibited in this exhibition since the exhibition started 38 21.3 54 36.5 Once 93 52.2 56 37.8 2–5 times 24 13.5 20 13.5 6–9 times More than 10 times 22 12.4 18 12.2

27 10 5 10

Total (listwise)

52

177

148

Times of annual exhibition attendance in China Once 63 36.0 Twice 39 22.3 29 16.6 Three times 43 24.6 4 times or more Total (listwise)

174

Positions in the company Business owner Managing partners Senior management staff Middle management staff Others Total (listwise)

176

12 15 51 78 21

Total (listwise)

175

46 29 30 43

6.7 8.4 28.7 43.8 11.8

5 4 14 71 51

31.1 19.6 20.3 29.1

23 100 6 8 1 2 5 1

20 11 6 15

3.4 2.8 9.7 49.0 35.2

3 1 6 23 19

9.8 19.6 21.6 49.0

1 32 17 1 1

33.3 33.3 11.1 22.2

4 11 10 20

38.5 21.2 11.5 28.8

26 4 7 8

8.9 24.4 22.2 44.4

1 2 10 19 13

57.8 8.9 15.6 17.8

52

145

2 8 9 26

45

17 18 17 29

43 8 13 17

2.2 4.4 22.2 42.2 28.9

10 5 15 29 21

21.0 22.2 21.0 35.8

13 58 7 3

81

No.

Percent

23.6 50.0 26.4

149 303 161

24.3 49.4 26.3

36 34 11 29

613

32.7 30.9 10.0 26.4

3 10 19 78

53.1 9.9 16.0 21.0

46 13 17 34

2.7 9.1 17.3 70.9

7 5 26 47 25

41.8 11.8 15.5 30.9

15 68 14 3 7 1 2 110

100 137 124 249

16.4 22.5 20.3 40.7

215 88 111 199

35.1 14.4 18.1 32.3

613

6.4 4.5 23.6 42.7 22.7

110

16.0 71.6 8.6 3.7

33.3 36.6 12.4 17.6

610

110

12.5 6.3 18.8 36.3 26.3

205 225 76 109 615

110

80

4.4 17.8 20.0 57.8

26 55 29

Percent

110

81

45

1.9 61.5 32.7 1.9 1.9

43.2 21.0 13.6 22.2

81

45

5.8 1.9 11.5 44.2 36.5

35 17 11 18

No.

Overall

110

81

45

52

15.8 68.5 4.1 5.5 0.7 1.4 3.4 0.7

15 15 5 10

81

45

52

145

28.6 39.4 5.7 15.4 3.4 1.7 2.3 3.4

5 10 11 25

51.9 19.2 9.6 19.2

51

148

175

Where is the company located 50 North China 69 East China South China 10 27 Middle China 6 Southeast China Northwest China 3 4 Northeast China 6 Overseas

5.4 33.3 25.9 35.4

147

Times of annual exhibition attendance overseas 34 19.3 Not at all Once 23 13.1 37 21.0 Twice 81 46.0 3 times or more Total (listwise)

8 49 38 52

45

NJIEC

38 32 122 268 151

6.2 5.2 20.0 43.7 24.7

611

13.6 61.8 12.7 2.7 6.4 0.9 1.8

104 336 63 67 14 7 12 7

17.0 55.1 10.3 11.0 2.3 1.1 2.0 1.1

610

Notes: Both overall and breakdown of main survey sample characteristics are presented. Breakdown was compiled according to the venues where data were collected.

variables. These four indicators were ‘there is mutual benefit in the relationship between our company and the organizer’ (AC), ‘it is hard to break the relationship with this organizer’ (CC), ‘our company will continue to use the services of this organizer as there are no better similar exhibitions in this region’ (CC), and ‘our company may suffer economically if we do not work with this organizer’ (CC). Three of these indicators measure calculative commitment, resulting in the low CR value for the construct (0.60). Overall, the measurement model is supported and the measures demonstrate good measurement properties. In order to keep as many variables as possible in the model (Hair et al., 2006), the four indicators were retained and subjected to the second-order CFA. 4.2.3. Second-order CFA of relationship quality Table 6 presents the results of the second-order model, using the full data. This measurement model includes the four first-order

factors, together with their indicators, measurement errors, and standardized coefficients. Each of the four first-order factors has significant factor loadings of 0.931, 0.926, 0.831, and 0.806 respectively, on the second-order factor, indicating that the four latent variables significantly converge on a common underlying construct (Cadogan et al., 1999). SMC for the four factors are high: 0.866 for service quality and satisfaction, 0.858 for trust and affective commitment, 0.691 for communication, and 0.650 for calculative commitment, indicating that the latent construct explains 86.6%, 85.8%, 69.1%, and 65% of the variances of the four dimensions respectively. All factor loadings for the first-order indicators are above 0.5, and each indicator t-value exceeds 7.0 (p < 0.001). These statistics suggest that the indicators are valid and reliable measurements for the designated constructs. The secondorder model exhibits adequate fit (2 = 699.558, df = 226, p < 0.001, 2 /df = 3.095, GFI = 0.902; CFI = 0.950, RMSEA = 0.058). Compared

X. Jin et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 1222–1234

1229

Table 4 EFA results of relationship quality. Factor/item Service quality and relationship satisfaction Overall, the services provided by this organizer meet our expectations. Our company is satisfied with the professionalism of this organizer. This organizer has attracted the right type of buyers to this exhibition. In general, our company is satisfied with our relationship with this organizer. I will recommend this organizer as an exhibition supplier to other firms. This organizer cares about our interests (e.g., actions have been taken to protect the copyright of our product). The relationship with this organizer has produced results that enable our company to increase the value of our brand. This organizer understands our exhibiting needs and objectives. This organizer responds to problems immediately. The on-site services provided by this organizer are good.

Loading

Variance explained

Reliability alpha

13.325

49.351

0.946

1.505

5.574

0.906

1.268

4.695

0.808

1.027

3.804

0.711

0.798 0.779 0.722 0.713 0.689 0.689 0.664 0.629 0.615 0.575

Trust and affective commitment Maintaining a long-term relationship with this organizer is important to our company. Our company takes pleasure in being a customer of the organizer. This organizer keeps promises it makes to our company. Our company trusts the information this organizer provides. Our company can rely on this organizer in our business relationship. The relationship with this organizer will be profitable over the long term. Our company trusts the organizer to provide quality exhibitions and services to us. There is a mutual benefit in the relationship between our company and the organizer.

0.720 0.696 0.665 0.633 0.620 0.619 0.565 0.472

Communication This exhibition organizer regularly informs our company about this exhibition. This organizer and our company exchange information that may benefit one another. This organizer always informs our company of important changes about the exhibition.

0.759 0.752 0.645

Calculative commitment Our company may suffer economically if we do not work with this organizer. Our company dedicates important efforts to continue the relationship with this organizer. It is hard to break the relationship with this organizer. Our company will continue to use the services of this organizer as there are no better similar exhibitions in this region.

Eigen-value

0.788 0.683 0.516 0.420

N = 294; KMO = 0.962; Bartlett’s test of sphericity: approx. chi-square = 5031.080, df = 351, Sig. = 0.000; total variance explained = 63.425. Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser normalization. Rotation converged in 6 iterations.

Table 5 Measurement model of relationship quality – first-order. Factor/item Service quality and relationship satisfaction The relationship with this organizer has produced results that enable our company to increase the value of our brand. I will recommend this organizer as an exhibition supplier to other firms. In general, our company is satisfied with our relationship with this organizer. Overall, the services provided by this organizer meet our expectations. This organizer cares about our interests (e.g., actions have been taken to protect the copyright of our products). Our company is satisfied with the professionalism of this organizer. This organizer has attracted the right type of buyers to this exhibition. This organizer responds to problems immediately. This organizer understands our exhibiting needs and objectives. Trust and affective commitment The relationship with this organizer will be profitable over the long term. Maintaining a long-term relationship with this organizer is important to our company. Our company can rely on this organizer in our business relationship. Our company takes pleasure in being a customer of the organizer. There is mutual benefit in the relationship between our company and the organizer. Our company trusts the organizer to provide quality exhibitions and services to us. Our company trusts the information this organizer provides. This organizer keeps promises it makes to our company. Communication This organizer and our company exchange information that may benefit one another. This exhibition organizer regularly informs our company about this exhibition. This organizer always informs our company of important changes about the exhibition. Calculative commitment It is hard to break the relationship with this organizer. Our company will continue to use the services of this organizer as there are no better similar exhibitions in this region. Our company may suffer economically if we do not work with this organizer. N = 293, 2 = 509.599; 2 /df = 2.275; P = 0.000; GFI = 0.866; TLI = 0.928; CFI = 0.936; RMSEA = 0.066.

Std. factor loading

t-Value

SMC

0.803

n/a

0.645

0.844 0.866 0.866 0.738

24.695 25.642 25.622 20.497

0.713 0.751 0.75 0.544

0.871 0.773 0.749 0.754

25.859 21.833 20.92 21.096

0.759 0.598 0.561 0.568

0.654 0.764 0.811 0.824 0.61 0.804 0.798 0.7

16.644 n/a 21.362 21.798 15.402 21.154 20.96 17.987

0.427 0.583 0.657 0.68 0.372 0.646 0.636 0.494

0.754 0.788 0.719

n/a 18.185 16.733

0.569 0.621 0.517

0.6 0.637

n/a 11.162

0.361 0.406

0.5

9.466

0.278

Composite reliability 0.94

0.91

0.82

0.60

1230

X. Jin et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 1222–1234

Table 6 Measurement model of relationship quality – second-order. Factor/item

Std. loading

Relationship quality Service quality and relationship satisfaction Trust and affective commitment Communication Calculative commitment

t-Value

0.931 0.926 0.831 0.806

17.716 n/a 15.272 11.615

SMC

AVE

CR

0.866 0.858 0.691 0.650

0.76 0.65 0.56 0.57 0.34

0.93 0.94 0.91 0.80 0.66

N = 616, 2 = 699.558; 2 /df = 3.095; P = 0.000; GFI = 0.902. AGFI = 0.881; CFI = 0.95; RMSEA = 0.058; PNFI = 0.829. Table 7 t-Tests for exhibitors’ relationship quality perceptions – trade fairs. Organized by international versus domestic organizers.

Trust and affective commitment Communication SQ and relationship satisfaction Calculative commitment *

International (n = 178)

National (n = 437)

Mean

Mean

Mean Diff.

t-Value

Sig.

5.36 5.20 5.13 4.31

4.67 4.48 4.22 3.66

0.69 0.71 0.92 0.65

7.224 6.346 8.999 5.913

0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000*

A significant difference at ˛ ≤ 0.05.

to the first-order measurement model, the second-order model exhibits better predictive validity, and is more parsimonious and performs better on indices that reflect parsimony (PNFI = 0.829, PCFI = 0.848, PRATIO = 0.893). CRs for the second-order construct and three of the four compositing factors are higher than 0.8, indicating excellent convergent validity of the constructs. Only the calculative commitment factor has a CR value of 0.66, still above 0.6, the point for acceptance (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988; Diamantopoulos and Siguaw, 2000). Thus, all statistics support the second-order measurement model for the relationship quality construct. 4.3. Different perceptions of exhibitors on relationship quality Perceptions of exhibitors at trade shows operated by international organizers were compared to those of exhibitors at trade shows operated by national organizers. The former rated all four RQ dimensions higher than the latter. More specifically, the grand mean scores of exhibitors at fairs operated by international organizers were 5.36, 5.20, 5.13 and 4.31 respectively for trust and affective commitment, communication, service quality and relationship satisfaction, and calculative commitment; in contrast, the grand mean scores of exhibitors at fairs operated by national organizers were 4.67, 4.48, 4.22 and 3.66 respectively. Independent sample t-tests showed that there was a significant

difference between the two groups for all four RQ dimensions, as detailed in Table 7. Exhibitors’ perceptions of relationship quality with private companies were compared to those of exhibitors with governmentaffiliates, with the former rating all four RQ dimensions higher than the latter. The grand mean scores of exhibitors at fairs operated by private organizers were 4.95, 4.77, 4.67, and 3.98 respectively for trust and affective commitment, communication, perceptive service and relationship satisfaction, and calculative commitment; in contrast, the grand mean scores of exhibitors at fairs operated by government affiliates were 4.76, 4.58, 4.23, and 3.67 respectively. Independent sample t-tests showed that there was a significant difference in terms of the ‘service quality and relationship satisfaction’ dimension and the ‘calculative commitment’ dimension, as detailed in Table 8. There was no significant difference for the ‘communication’ dimension. For ‘trust and affective commitment,’ the difference was not significant at the 95% intervals, but it is significant at the 90% intervals (p = 0.53). Finally, perceptions of relationship quality of exhibitors who exhibited for the first-time at the particular exhibition were compared to those of repeat exhibitors. Not surprisingly, first-timers rated all four RQ dimensions lower than repeat exhibitors, with the grand mean scores of first-timers being 4.82, 4.47, 4.33 and 3.57 for trust and affective commitment, communication, perceptive

Table 8 t-Tests for exhibitors’ relationship quality perceptions – trade fairs. Organized by private companies versus government-affiliations.

Trust and affective commitment Communication SQ and relationship satisfaction Calculative commitment *

Private (n = 357)

Government (n = 258)

Mean

Mean

Mean Diff.

t-Value

Sig.

4.95 4.77 4.67 3.98

4.76 4.58 4.23 3.67

0.19 0.19 0.44 0.31

1.940 1.599 4.089 3.019

0.053 0.111 0.000* 0.003*

A significant difference at ˛ ≤ 0.05.

Table 9 t-Tests for exhibitors’ relationship quality perceptions – first-timers versus repeat exhibitors.

Trust and affective commitment Communication SQ and relationship satisfaction Calculative commitment *

A significant difference at ˛ ≤ 0.05.

First-timers (n = 205)

Repeat exhibitors (n = 409)

Mean

Mean

Mean Diff.

t-Value

Sig.

4.82 4.47 4.33 3.57

4.89 4.80 4.57 3.99

−0.07 −0.33 −0.23 −0.42

−0.703 −2.684 −1.99 −3.882

0.482 0.007* 0.047* 0.000*

X. Jin et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 1222–1234

service and relationship satisfaction, and calculative commitment respectively; in contrast, the grand mean scores of repeat exhibitors were 4.89, 4.80, 4.57, and 3.99 respectively. Independent sample t-tests showed that there was significant difference in terms of communication, perceived service and relationship satisfaction, and calculative commitment, as detailed in Table 9. This indicates that repeat exhibitors perceive a more binding relationship to organizers than first-timers. There was no significant difference in terms of the ‘trust and affective commitment’ dimension.

5. Discussions Hypothesis H1 proposed that exhibitors’ relationship quality with organizers in the exhibition context is a second-order construct composed of five factors. While results confirmed that both instrumental (communication and service quality) and interpersonal factors (trust and commitment) are important determinants of relationship quality, the hypothesis is only partially supported as EFA and CFA analyses supported a four-factor rather than a five-factor model. This model consisted of (1) service quality and relationship satisfaction, (2) trust and affective commitment, (3) calculative commitment, and (4) communication. Thus, this research supports the use of a second-order relationship quality construct, suggesting that a multidimensional conceptualization of relationship quality in the exhibition context is viable. Prior research has utilized only a subset of these dimensions to predict relationship quality, most often trust, commitment and satisfaction (e.g., Abdul-Muhmin, 2005; Huntley, 2006; Stanko et al., 2007). In contrast, this research used service quality and communication as two additional dimensions of relationship quality; results support the inclusion of service quality as a dimension of relationship quality by Rauyruen and Miller (2007), one of the first empirical studies to include this dimension following suggestions by Crosby et al. (1990) and Hennig-Thurau and Klee (1997). Results also support the inclusion of communication as a dimension of relationship quality, as suggested by Lages et al. (2005). Differences in dimensionality of relationship quality in the exhibition context, compared to previous studies, may be due to a number of reasons. First, this study is one of the few studies that in addition to numerous measures of affective commitment also included various measures of calculative commitment. In contrast, prior studies often included measures of either affective or calculative commitment only, thus, not allowing for a sufficient differentiation between these two very different dimensions of commitment (e.g., Cater and Zabkar, 2009; Rauyruen and Miller, 2007). Consequently, a uni-dimensional factor of commitment would be reported in those studies. Yet, results have shown that measures for affective commitment diverge significantly from those of calculative commitment, indeed being closer in nature to trust, and, thus emphasizing the need for caution to treat commitment as a uni-dimensional factor in further studies. Second, regarding ‘service quality and relationship satisfaction,’ previously identified as two separate but closely related dimensions of relationship quality, Roberts et al. (2003) noted that there might be a certain overlap between the two, even though an assessment of the former is typically more concerned with transactional dimensions whereas the latter relates to more relational ones. Third, the context and setting of this study (that is, the exhibition B2B context and China) differed significantly from those of previous studies developed in Western countries and different B2B or B2C settings. Yet, considering (1) that the EFA statistics are robust; (2) the high consistency of results of pilot data and main survey data suggesting discrepancies might be context-specific rather than data-specific and (3) differences in context and setting, it is argued that the change in dimensionality might be due to the commonality the

1231

items shared in the exhibition context in the specific country setting. Thus, EFA variables were kept for CFA validation to test for the stability of the dimensionality. Statistical results of the 1st-order CFA and 2nd-order CFA confirmed that the dimensionality is indeed tenable. Proposition P1 stated that relationship quality differs, depending on key characteristics of organizers and exhibitors. Study findings supported this proposition. First, exhibitors at fairs operated by international organizers rated all relationship quality variables, at both factor and item level, significantly higher than their counterparts at fairs operated by domestic organizers. It appears that the former perceived to have better relationships with international organizers than their counterparts with domestic organizers. This might be due to a number of reasons: (1) the two international organizers sampled in this study enjoy a global reputation as industry leaders; (2) the events they hosted took place in the SNIEC, one of the benchmark venues in Mainland China, and (3) the exhibitions were premier events in their specific industry sectors, demonstrating high operational standards and professionalism in fair management. The organizers’ international reputation, database development, business attitude, standardized operation, and communication platform utilized (be it via website, direct mail, or personal communication) are all likely to have contributed to the observed differences. It also provides some evidence that foreign exhibition companies have exerted a marked influence on China’s exhibition management and development, and contributed to the standardization of the industry (Kay, 2007). Second, exhibitors at fairs operated by private organizing companies rated three relationship quality factors (service quality and relationship satisfaction, calculative commitment, and trust and affective commitment) significantly higher than those at fairs operated by government-affiliates. This finding suggests that the former were more satisfied with organizers’ services and their relationships, had a higher level of trust and established a higher level of commitment than the latter. The private companies refer to both international and domestic ones; the fact that international organizers established better relationships with exhibitors than domestic companies, as previously discussed, might contribute to the observed differences. Yet, it could also imply that some domestic, private companies have developed better relationships with exhibitors than government-affiliations. This can be argued on two grounds. On the one hand, the domestic private companies sampled are mainly industry associations with a number of years’ experience of operating exhibitions (e.g., the private company operating the fair staged in PEACE-Hangzhou). As noted by Chan (2008) and Kay (2007), domestic, private companies which operate and own brand-name exhibitions are few in number. However, given their identity as industry associations, expertise in knowing the industry, and experience in fair operation, they might be able to provide quality services, and establish trust and commitment with exhibitors. On the other hand, two kinds of problems might hamper relationship building between exhibitors and government-affiliation companies, namely, (1) a sellers’ market with an administrative style of management rather than a business partnership, and (2) governments’ motivation to try to fill venue space with exhibitions without systematic evaluation of the resources and feasibility to develop sustainable exhibitions (Chan, 2005, 2008; Kay, 2007). Given the various possible interpretations of this study finding, future studies may examine this aspect in more detail. Finally, there was no significant difference in perceptions regarding communication, suggesting that both private and government-affiliates utilized similar methods for information exchange, with resulting perceived communication quality being very similar. Third, repeat exhibitors rated three relationship quality factors (service quality and relationship satisfaction, communication, and calculative commitment) significantly higher than first-time

1232

X. Jin et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 1222–1234

exhibitors. Thus, it appears that, in general, repeat exhibitors were more committed to the exhibitions/organizers (even if that commitment was based on calculative considerations) and that they were more willing to forgive some service failures by organizers. Furthermore, repeat exhibitors might be more active in searching for and receiving information from organizers than firsttimers. In contrast, first-timers might be more sales-oriented, thus evaluating organizer performance mainly based on their own business outcomes. It is interesting to note that first-time exhibitors demonstrated no significant difference in perceptions of trust and affective commitment compared to repeat exhibitors, indicating that this factor, from the exhibitors’ perspective, depends more on exhibition quality and organizer performance than frequency of participation. 6. Conclusion This research adapted and extended relationship quality scales and measurements developed in various B2B or B2C contexts in Western countries to the exhibition context in Mainland China. Results indicate that in the exhibition context, where exhibitor recruitment and the provision of facilities/amenities become increasingly homogenous among competitive exhibitions/organizers/destinations, relationship marketing might play an important role in creating long-lasting exhibitions. Cultivating a long-term relationship orientation with exhibitors shall be critical for exhibition organizers for the successful and sustainable development of exhibitions. In designing this study, considerable efforts were made to minimize its limitations, and particularly ensure its representativeness by sampling altogether 10 exhibitions in two first-tier cities and four second-tier cities in two regions where exhibitions are most developed, and thereby covering international and national exhibitions of diverse ownerships and varied industry sectors, staged in venues in both first and second-tier cities over a period of four months. However, it is acknowledged that this research used on-site non-random rather than random sampling which might mitigate the high level of reliability and validity of the research. In addition, differences in perceptions of exhibitors derived from the nature of their industry and the way they interact with the organizers were not considered in this research, but may represent a fruitful avenue for future research in this increasingly important industry sector. Future studies are required to confirm the dimensionality of relationship quality in the exhibition context, both in Asian and Western markets. Future research is also required to explore additional antecedents to relationship quality to the ones assessed in this study. In addition to antecedents, an assessment of potential outcomes of relationship quality, for example exhibition brand preference, is also to be of likely interest to both researchers and practitioners alike. Finally, as previously mentioned, given different possible interpretations of study findings, future research may also investigate in more detail differences in perceptions between exhibitors at exhibitions organized by private companies versus those organized by government affiliates. References Abdul-Muhmin, A.G., 2005. Instrumental and interpersonal determinants of relationship satisfaction and commitment in industrial markets. Journal of Business Research 58 (5), 619–628. Anderson, J.C., Narus, J.A., 1991. Partnering as a focused market strategy. California Management Review 33 (Spring), 95–113. Anderson, J.C., Narus, J.A., 2004. Business Market Management. Pearson Prentice Hall. Anderson, E., Weitz, B., 1989. Determinants of continuity in conventional industrial channel dyads. Marketing Science 8 (4), 310–323. Bagozzi, R.P., Yi, Y., 1988. On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 16 (1), 74–94.

Baruch, Y., 1999. Response rate in academic studies: a comparative analysis. Human Relations 52 (4), 421–438. Bauer, T., Law, R., Tse, T., Weber, K., 2008. Motivation and satisfaction of megabusiness event attendees: the case of ITU Telecom World 2006 in Hong Kong. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 20 (2), 228–234. Bello, D., 1992. Industrial buyer behaviour at trade shows: implications for selling effectiveness. Journal of Business Research 25 (1), 59–80. Bello, D.C., Hiram, C., Barksdale, J., 1986. Exporting at industrial trade shows. Industrial Marketing Management 15, 197–206. Bello, D.C., Lohtia, R., 1993. Improving trade show effectiveness by analyzing attendees. Industrial Marketing Management 22 (4), 311–318. Berne, C., García-Uceda, M., 2008. Criteria involved in evaluation of trade shows to visit. Industrial Marketing Management 37 (5), 565–579. Blythe, J., 1999. Visitor and exhibitor expectations and outcomes at trade exhibitions. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 17 (2), 100–110. Blythe, J., 2002. Using trade fairs in key account management. Industrial Marketing Management 31 (7), 627–635. Blythe, J., Rayner, T., 1996. The evaluation of non-selling activities at British trade exhibitions: an exploratory study. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 14 (5), 20–24. Bonoma, T.V., 1983. Get more out of your trade show. Harvard Business Review 61, 75–83. Borghini, S., Golfetto, F., Rinallo, D., 2006. Ongoing search among industrial buyers. Journal of Business Research 59 (10–11), 1151–1159. Breiter, D., Gregory, S., 2003. Tradeshow managers: a study of technology innovation and time poverty. Journal of Convention & Exhibition Management 5 (2), 52–67. Breiter, D., Milman, A., 2006. Attendees’ needs and service priorities in a large convention center: application of the importance-performance theory. Tourism Management 27 (6), 1364–1370. Cadogan, J.W., Diamantopoulos, A., Mortanges, C.P.D., 1999. A measure of export market orientation: scale development and cross-cultural validation. Journal of International Business Studies 30 (4), 689–707. Chan, C., 2005. Exhibition Theory and Practice. Haitian Publications, Shenzhen. Chan, C., 2008. On spatial distribution of China’s exhibitions. China Exhibition. Retrieved from: http://:www.cnki.net (20.08.08). Cater, B., Zabkar, V., 2009. Antecedents and consequences of commitment in marketing research services: the client’s perspective. Industrial Marketing Management 38 (7), 785–797. Chiou, J.S., Hsieh, C., Shen, Ch., 2007. Product innovativeness, trade show strategy and trade show performance: the case of Taiwanese global information technology firms. Journal of Global Marketing 20 (2/3), 31–42. Chonko, L.B., Tanner, J.F., McKee, J., 1994. Behind the booths. Marketing Management 3 (1), 40–43. Coote, L.V, Forrest, E.J., Tam, T.W., 2003. An investigation into commitment in nonWestern industrial marketing relationships. Industrial Marketing Management 32 (7), 595–604. Crosby, L.A., Evans, K.A., Cowles, D., 1990. Relationship quality in services selling: an interpersonal influence perspective. Journal of Marketing 54 (3), 68. Dekimpe, M.G., Franc¸ois, P., Gopalakrishna, S., Lilien, G.L., Bulte, C.V.D., 1997. Generalizing about trade show effectiveness: a cross-national comparison. The Journal of Marketing 61 (4), 55–64. De Wulf, K., Odekerken-Schröder, G., Iacobucci, D., 2001. Investments in consumer relationships: a cross-country and cross-industry exploration. Journal of Marketing 65 (4), 33–50. Diamantopoulos, A., Siguaw, J.A., 2000. Introducing Lisrel: A Guide for the Uninitiated. SAGE. Dickinson, J.R., Faria, A.J., 1985 May. Firms with large market shares, product lines rate shows highly. Marketing News, 14. Dorsch, M.J., Swanson, S.R., Kelley, S.W., 1998. The role of relationship quality in the stratification of vendors as perceived by customers. Academy of Marketing Science Journal, Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com/ pqdlink?did=28244381&Fmt=7&clientId=58117&RQT=309&VName=PQD. Edgar, J., 2002. Virtual exhibitions: a new product of the IT era. Journal of Convention & Exhibition Management 4 (2), 69–78. Erwin, J., Messe Dusseldorf as a pioneer in China’s growth market 2005. In: Kirchgeorg, M., Giese, W., Dornscheidt, W. (Eds.), Trade Show Management: Planning, Implementing and Controlling of Trade Shows, Conventions and Events. Gabler Verlag, pp. 607–613. Field, A., 2005. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, 2nd ed. Sage Publications, London. Friedmann, S.A., 2002. Ten steps to a successful trade show. Marketing Heath Services 22 (1), 31–32. Garbarino, E., Johnson, M.S., 1999. The different roles of satisfaction, trust, and commitment in customer relationships. Journal of Marketing 63 (2), 70–87. Geyskens, I., Steenkamp, J.E.M., Scheer, L.K., Kumar, N., 1996. The effects of trust and interdependence on relationship commitment: a trans-Atlantic study. International Journal of Research in Marketing 13 (4), 303–317. Godar, S.H., O’Connor, P.J., 2001. Same time next year – buyer trade show motives. Industrial Marketing Management 30 (1), 77–86. Gopalakrishna, S., Williams, J.D., 1992. Planning and performance assessment of industrial trade shows: an exploratory study. International Journal of Research in Marketing 9, 207–224. Gounaris, S.P., 2005. Trust and commitment influences on customer retention: insights from business-to-business services. Journal of Business Research 58 (2), 126–140.

X. Jin et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 1222–1234 Gregory, S., Breiter, D., 2001. Trade show managers: profile in technology usage. Journal of Convention & Exhibition Management 3 (3), 63–76. Gustafsson, A., Johnson, M.D., Roos, I., 2005. The effects of customer satisfaction, relationship commitment dimensions, and triggers on customer retention. Journal of Marketing 69 (4), 210–218. Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., Black, W.C., 2006. Multivariate Analysis, 6th ed. Prentice Hall International, Englewood. Hansen, K., 1996. The dual motives of participants at international trade shows: an empirical investigation of exhibitors and visitors with selling motives. International Marketing Review 13 (2), 39–53. Hansen, K., 1999. From selling to relationship marketing at international trade fairs. Journal of Convention & Exhibition Management 2 (1), 37–53. Hansen, K., 2004. Measuring performance at trade shows scale development and validation. Journal of Business Research 57 (1), 1–13. Heckmann, S.D., 2005. Trade shows in transition. In: Kirchgeorg, M., Giese, W., Dornscheidt, W. (Eds.), Trade Show Management: Planning, Implementing and Controlling of Trade Shows, Conventions and Events. Gabler Verlag, pp. 191–198. Hennig-Thurau, T., Klee, A., 1997. The impact of customer satisfaction and relationship quality on customer retention: a critical reassessment and model development. Psychology and Marketing 14 (8), 737–764. Herbig, P., O’Hara, B., Palumbo, F., 1997. Differences between trade show exhibitors and non-exhibitors. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 12 (6), 368–382. Hultsman, W., 2001. From the eyes of an exhibitor: characteristics that make exhibitions a success for all stakeholders. Journal of Convention & Exhibition Management 3 (3), 27–44. Huntley, J.K., 2006. Conceptualization and measurement of relationship quality: linking relationship quality to actual sales and recommendation intention. Industrial Marketing Management 35 (6), 703–714. Jago, L., Deery, M., 2010. Delivering Innovation, Knowledge and Performance: The Role of Business Events. Business Events Council of Australia, Sydney. Jayawardhena, C., Souchon, A.L., Farrell, A.M., Glanville, K., 2007. Outcomes of service encounter quality in a business-to-business context. Industrial Marketing Management 36 (5), 575–588. Jin, X., 2011. Exhibition brand preference in mainland China: the role of relationship quality and destination attractiveness. Doctoral thesis. The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Johnson, D., Grayson, K., 2005. Cognitive and affective trust in service relationships. Journal of Business Research 58 (4), 500–507. Jung, M., 2005. Determinants of exhibition service quality as perceived by attendees. Journal of Convention and Event Tourism 7 (3/4), 85–98. Kay, A., 2007. International Exhibition Organizers in China and their Performance. Doctoral Thesis. The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Kay, A., 2005. China’s convention and exhibition center boom. Journal of Convention & Event Tourism 7 (1), 5–22. Keh, H.T., Xie, Y., 2009. Corporate reputation and customer behavioral intentions: the roles of trust, identification and commitment. Industrial Marketing Management 38 (7), 732–742. Lee-Kelley, L., Gilbert, D., Al-Shehabi, N.F., 2004. Virtual exhibitions: an exploratory study of Middle East exhibitors’ dispositions. International Marketing Review 21 (6), 634–644. Kerin, R.A., Cron, W.L., 1987. Assessing trade show functions and performance: an exploratory study. Journal of Marketing 51, 87–94. Kijewski, V., Yoon, E., Young, G., 1993. How exhibitors select trade shows. Industrial Marketing Management 22 (4), 287–298. Kim, W.G., Cha, Y., 2002. Antecedents and consequences of relationship quality in hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management 21 (4), 321–338. Kim, W.G., Lee, Y., Yoo, Y., 2006. Predictors of relationship quality and relationship outcomes in luxury restaurants. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 30 (2), 143–169. Kim, Y.K., Smith, A.K., 2007. Providing a critical service today for tomorrow’s consumers: a relational model of customer evaluations and responses in the child care industry. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 14 (3), 232–245. Kozak, N., 2005. The expectations of exhibitors in tourism, hospitality, and the travel industry: a case study on East Mediterranean Tourism and Travel Exhibition. Journal of Convention & Event Tourism 7 (3/4), 99–115. Kresse, H., 2005. The importance of associations and institutions in the trade fair industry. In: Kirchgeorg, M., Giese, W., Dornscheidt, W. (Eds.), Trade Show Management: Planning, Implementing and Controlling of Trade Shows, Conventions and Events. Gabler Verlag, pp. 87–97. Kumar, N., Scheer, L.K., Steenkamp, J.E.M., 1995. The effects of perceived interdependence on dealer attitudes. Journal of Marketing Research 32 (3), 348–356. Lages, C., Lages, C.R., Lages, L.F., 2005. The RELQUAL scale: a measure of relationship quality in export market ventures. Journal of Business Research 58 (8), 1040–1048. Lages, L.F., Lancastre, A., Lages, C., 2008. The B2B-RELPERF scale and scorecard: bringing relationship marketing theory into business-to-business practice. Industrial Marketing Management 37 (6), 686–697. Li, Y.-Y., 2006. Relationship learning at trade shows: its antecedents and consequences. Industrial Marketing Management 35 (2), 166–177. Li, Y.-Y., 2007. Marketing resources and performance of exhibitor firms in trade shows: a contingent resource perspective. Industrial Marketing Management 36 (3), 360–370. Liu, Y., Li, Y., Tao, L., Wang, Y., 2008. Relationship stability, trust and relational risk in marketing channels: evidence from China. Industrial Marketing Management 37 (4), 432–446.

1233

Luo, Q., 2007. Trade show operation models: characteristics, process, and effectiveness – cases from Dongguan. Journal of China Tourism Research 3 (3/4), 478–508. Macneil, I.R., 1978. Contracts: adjustments of long-term economic relationship under classical, neoclassical, and relational contract law. Northwestern University Law Review 72, 854–906. McCabe, V.S., 2008. Strategies for career planning and development in the Convention and Exhibition industry in Australia. International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2), 222–231. Mohr, J.J., Fisher, R.J., Nevin, J.R., 1996. Collaborative communication in inter-firm relationships: moderating effects of integration and control. The Journal of Marketing 60 (3), 103–115. Mohr, J., Spekman, R., 1994. Characteristics of partnership success: partnership attributes, communication behavior, and conflict resolution techniques. Strategic Management Journal 15 (2), 135–152. Moorman, C., Zaltman, G., Deshpande, R., 1992. Relationships between providers and users of market research: the dynamics of trust within and between organizations. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR) 29 (3), 314–328. Morgan, R.M., Hunt, S.D., 1994. The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing 58 (3), 20. Motwani, J., Rice, G., Mahmoud, E., 1992. Promoting exports through international trade shows: a dual perspective. Review of Business 13 (4), 38–42. Munuera, J.L., Ruiz, S., 1999. Trade fairs as services: a look at visitors’ objectives in Spain. Journal of Business Research 44 (1), 17–24. O’Hara, B.S., 1993. Evaluating the effectiveness of trade shows: a personal selling perspective. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management 13 (3), 67–78. Palmatier, R.W., Dant, R.P., Grewal, D., Evans, K.R., 2006. Factors influencing the effectiveness of relationship marketing: a meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing 70 (4), 136–153. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., 1985. A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing 49 (fall), 41–50. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., 1988. Communication and control processes in the delivery of service quality. Journal of Marketing 52, 35–48. Phan, M.C.T., Styles, C.W., Patterson, P.G., 2005. Relational competency’s role in Southeast Asia business partnerships. Journal of Business Research 58 (2), 173–184. Pitta, D.A., Weisgal, M., Lynagh, P., 2006. Integrating exhibit marketing into integrated marketing communications. Journal of Consumer Marketing 23 (3), 156–166. Poorani, A.A., 1996. Trade-show management. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 37 (4), 77–84. Rauyruen, P., Miller, K.E., 2007. Relationship quality as a predictor of B2B customer loyalty. Journal of Business Research 60 (1), 21–31. Rice, G., Almossawi, M., 2002. A study of exhibitor firms at an Arabian gulf trade show: goals, selection criteria and perceived problems. Journal of Global Marketing 15 (3/4), 149–172. Roberts, K., Varki, S., Brodie, R., 2003. Measuring the quality of relationships in consumer services: an empirical study. European Journal of Marketing 37 (1/2), 169–196. Rosson, P.J., Seringhaus, F.R., 1995. Visitor and exhibitor interaction at industrial trade fairs. Journal of Business Research 32 (1), 81–90. Rubalcaba-Bermejo, L., Cuadrado-Roura, J.R., 1995. Urban hierarchies and territorial competition in Europe: exploring the role of fairs and exhibitions. Urban Studies 32 (2), 379–400. Sashi, C.M., Perretty, J., 1992. Do trade shows provide value? Industrial Marketing Management 21, 249–255. Sharland, A., Balogh, P., 1996. The value of non-selling activities at international trade shows. Industrial Marketing Management 325 (1), 59–66. Shipley, D., Egan, C., Wong, K. (nd), Sun, 1993. Dimensions of trade show exhibiting management. Journal of Marketing Management, 9, 55–63. Seringhaus, F.H., Rosson, P.J., 2001. Firm experience and international trade fairs. Journal of Marketing Management 17 (7), 877–901. Shoham, A., 1992. Selecting and evaluating trade shows. Industrial Marketing Management 21 (4), 335–341. Shoham, A., 1999. Performance in trade shows and exhibitions: a synthesis and directions for future research. Journal of Global Marketing 12 (3), 41–57. Smith, Hama, Smith, 2003. The effect of successful trade show attendance on future show interest: exploring Japanese attendee perspectives of domestic and offshore international events. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 18 (4/5), 403–418. Smith, T.M., Smith, P.M., 1999. Distributor and end-user trade show attendance objectives: an opportunity for adaptive selling. Forest Products Journal 49 (1), 23–29. Stanko, M.A., Bonner, J.M., Calantone, R.J., 2007. Building commitment in buyer-seller relationships: a tie strength perspective. Industrial Marketing Management 36 (8), 1094–1103. Stoeck, N., Schraudy, K., 2005. From trade show company to integrated communication service provider. In: Kirchgeorg, M. (Ed.), Trade Show Management: Planning, Implementing and Controlling of Trade Shows, Conventions and Events. Gabler, Wiesbaden, pp. 199–210. Tanner, J.F., 2002. Leveling the playing field: factors influencing trade show success for small companies. Industrial Marketing Management 31 (3), 229–239.

1234

X. Jin et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 1222–1234

Tanner, J.F., Chonko, L.B., Ponzurick, T.V., 2001. A learning model of trade show attendance. Journal of Convention & Exhibition Management 3 (3), 3–24. UFI, 2007. The World Map of Exhibition Venues and Future Trends. Retrieved from: www.ufinet.org/media/publicationspress/2007 ufi world map of exhibition venues.pdf (10.02.08). Walter, A., Miller, T.A., Helfert, G., Ritter, T., 2003. Functions of industrial supplier relationships and their impact on relationship quality. Industrial Marketing Management 32 (2), 159–169. Wang, 2007. Fraud in Exhibitor Acquisition and the Role of the Industrial Associations. Retrieved from: http://www.cces.org.cn/viewnews.asp?id=999 (20.01.08).

Wetzels, M., Ruyter, K.D., Birgelen, M.V., 1998. Marketing service relationships: the role of commitment. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 13 (4/5), 406–423. Wismer, K., Schutte, C., 2005. Representation networks as foreign sales channels. In: Kirchgeorg, M., Giese, W., Dornscheidt, W. (Eds.), Trade Show Management: Planning, Implementing and Controlling of Trade Shows, Conventions and Events. Gabler Verlag, pp. 521–543. Zitzewitz, 2005. Structural adaptation – splitting business functions. In: Kirchgeorg, M., Giese, W., Dornscheidt, W. (Eds.), Trade Show Management: Planning, Implementing and Controlling of Trade Shows, Conventions and Events. Gabler Verlag, pp. 225–237.