Trade Show G uideli nes
for Smaller rms
Jerome D. Williams
Srinath Gopalakrishna
Jonathan M. Cox
This article helps managers of small to medium-size firms
assess theirjrm’s performance at a trade show. Since smaller
firms typically have fewer resources, they must be particularly
aware of methods to improve performance to avoid the ’ ‘double
jeopardy” phenomenon, that is, suffering twice in a head-to-
head comparison with a 1argeJirm. We consider three different
indices of performance based on visitor contact and interaction
at ajrm’s booth. Suggestions are offered to minimize the effects
of the “double jeopardy” phenomenon.
INTRODUCTION
In a recent business article, trade shows were reported
as the second largest component of the total advertising
budget allocation in firms marketing industrial products
[l-2]. Also, a ranking of different communication media
in terms of usefulness among business executives sug-
Address correspondence to Jerome D. Williams, Dept. of Marketing,
Pennsylvania State University, 707C Business Administration Building, Uni-
versity Park, Pennsylvania 16802.
The authors wish to acknowledge support provided by the Pennsylvania
State University’s Institute for the Study of Business Markets, the Trade Show
Bureau, and Exhibit Surveys, Inc., and their client firms, which wish to remain
anonymous.
Industrial Marketing Management 22, 265-275 (1993)
0 Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc.. 1993
655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010
gests that trade shows rate as the second most useful
medium of communication (67.6% of respondents) be-
hind specialized business publications (76.4% of respon-
dents) [3]. The average budget allocation for trade shows
by a single firm was $212,600 in 1987, representing
almost a three-fold increase over the previous IO-year
period [4]. In addition to these industry studies, academic
researchers also have documented the importance of trade
shows in the promotion mix in terms of providing effec-
tive exposure for industrial products, their impact on pur-
chasing decisions, and their help in improving the new
product development process [S-7].
Studies have shown that over half of the audience at
a trade show is planning to buy and that 80% or more of
the attendees are a buying influence for one or more of
the types of products exhibited [8]. This suggests that a
trade show can be an excellent opportunity for a lit-m to
establish contact with potential customers. The number
of trade shows held annually almost doubled, from 4,500
The
to more than 9,000 during 1978-1988. More important,
the number of new exhibitors grew at over 7% from 1982
to 1987.
The link between the level of trade show activity and
the size of the participating firm is supported by empirical
studies which have shown that large firms seem to attend
265
0019.8501/93/$6.00
 Measuring trade show effectiveness
a substantially greater number of trade shows than small
firms-participating in three times as many shows in one
study [4, 9-101. Also, Lilien [ 1 l] found that the use of
trade shows was greater for products that had a high dollar
level of sales (representative of large firms) and that the
spending level in trade shows was likely to be greater
for those products.
Small firms may question the investment of scarce
resources in a setting where they are competing directly
against their larger competitors for fear of getting “swal-
lowed up” [ 121. These firms might reason that a better
investment is in personal selling, where the salesperson
has the undivided attention of the customer. It can be
easy for a small to medium-size firm to get overwhelmed
at a major trade show. For example, COMDEX/Fall, the
annual computer industry trade show in the United States,
attracts more than 125,000 visitors from 100 countries
and about 1,900 exhibiting companies. “Comdex is so
big and broad that a smaller, more focused product gets
lost there,” says Susan Werlinich, marketing commu-
nications manager with Expoconsul International Inc.
[ 131. Some 1,000 exhibitors fill the 490,000 net square
feet of exhibit space at Chicago’s McCormick Place for
the Annual Supermarket Industry Convention sponsored
by the Food Marketing Institute. At the National Asso-
ciation of Home Builders Show (NAHB), a relatively
small exhibitor, Focal Point, identified some problems
which typically plague small to medium-size firms. These
included (I) a booth crowded with lots of “casual” vis-
itors-the attendees actually interested in the firm’s prod-
ucts get discouraged by a wall of people and most likely
leave with little chance of coming back, and (2) difficulty
in competing with the giants-while some of the major
JEROME D. WILLIAMS and SRINATH GOPALAKRISHNA are
Assistant Professors of Marketing at The Pennsylvania State
University, University Park, Pennsylvania.
JONATHAN “SKIP” COX is Vice-President of Exhibit Surveys,
Inc., a firm specializing in trade show and exhibit
performance research.
266
players didn’t sell the same products as Focal Point, they
did occupy the same show floor and their large, glam-
orous booths were causing attendees to overlook Focal
Point’s smaller space [ 141.
In this article, we first discuss measuring a firm’s per-
formance at a trade show and propose three separate
indices of performance. For each of these, we discuss
the factors under a firm’s control that can play a role in
determining performance. We also suggest how a small
exhibitor can employ some of these factors to improve
performance. We then describe our data-collection pro-
cedure in order to compare the performance of a large
firm with two other small firms. Finally, we discuss our
findings and suggest directions for future research.
PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT ISSUES
Exhibit managers frequently encounter resistance to-
ward or lack of understanding of the role of trade shows
within their own organizations. This is in large part due
to the inherent difficulty in measuring trade show per-
formance [ 151, often characterized by management com-
ments such as “we go to trade shows because our
competitors are there” and “it is mostly a matter of
image.” A key to overcoming this obstacle is the de-
velopment of precise measures of performance of a firm
at a trade show. Exhibit managers can then quantify im-
provement in performance to top management rather than
spend an inordinate amount of effort justifying partici-
pation in trade shows.
Kerin and Cron [ 161 employed subjective ratings of
performance by exhibit managers on severul aspects (for
example, prospecting, servicing current customers, en-
hancing corporate image, etc). Another study by Gopa-
lakrishna and Williams [17] employed an objective
measure, lead generation efficiency, to assess perfor-
mance. An important issue with regard to the use of an
objective measure is whether an absolute or a relative
measure is appropriate. Based on commonly used meas-
ures related to trade show activity, such as number of
visitors to the booth, number of leads generated at the
show and so on, it would appear that a large firm would
“perform” better than a small firm. Typically the large
firm would have invested to a greater extent in pre-show
promotional activity such as advertising in trade journals,
invitations to key customers, publicity and press confer-
ences, and so on. Also, the large firm’s image and rep-
utation would induce a greater absolute number of
Booth visitors and leads generated
attendees at the show to visit the firm’s booth. At the
show, a large firm typically has a larger booth, more
personnel staffing the booth, and may be at a better lo-
cation, all of which provide an immense advantage over
the small firm. However, if we consider, the more ap-
propriate, relative measures of performance such as pro-
portion of contacts converted to leads, it is not clear
whether large firms necessarily “perform” better at a
trade show than small Erms. (See Figure 1 for a repre-
sentation of the types of trade show performance
measures)
PERFORMANCE
MEASURFS ABSOLUTE
Rating of a firm’s performance
at the show on enhancing
SUBJECTIVE corporate image*
(Kerin & Cron 1987)
- # leads generated at the show
- # of visitors to a fm’s
OBJECTIVE
* Rated by the firm’s exhibit manager
** Rated by the attendee
FIGURE 1. Types of trade show performance
In this article, we consider booth traffic and audience
profile as the key elements of performance. Understand-
ing the visitors who attend a trade show is critical in
judging the overall performance of the firm at that show
[9,18-201. This involves a careful analysis of booth
traffic and the profile of the attendees that go to a show.
For example, the proportion of attendees at the show who
had an interest in a firm’s products might suggest whether
the firm selected the right show for participation. Simi-
larly, knowledge of the number of attendees having spe-
cific plans to buy a firm’s products within a short time
horizon, the extent to which they have influence in the
purchase decision, the proportion of interested visitors
who came to the firm’s booth, and so on constitute im-
portant elements in evaluating the potential of a trade
show audience and the performance of an exhibit. Au-
dience profile measurements represent a valuable sup-
RELATIVE
Rating of XYZ firm’s
booth salespeople relative
to other booths visited
at the show**
# leads
# planning to buy
booth - proportion of visitors
interested in a firm’s
products that were
also attracted to its
booth
(Gopalakrishna &
Williams 1992)
measures
267
plement to measures consisting of mere self-assessments
by exhibit managers and other executives of the firm. In
this study, we focus on objective measures considered in
a relative sense.
Booth Attraction
Attendees at a trade show may be classified basically
into two groups: those who are interested in the types of
products exhibited by a firm and those who are not in-
terested. A firm would like to focus on that segment of
the audience which has an interest in its products. A Trade
Show Bureau report [21] observes that the potential au-
dience is the single most important statistic an exhibitor
can develop for a trade show. The reason is that the size
of the potential audience is the key element in determining
specific shows to attend and forms the basis for measuring
performance at selected shows.
Only a fraction of the interested attendees will actually
end up visiting the firm’s booth. A firm’s performance
may then be indicated by the number of interesfed visitors
who came by the booth as a proportion of the total number
of inderested visitors at the show. This represents a mea-
sure of exhibit performance-an indication of how well
the exhibit was able to attract the right audience and
reflects a summary of factors such as pre-show promo-
tion, demonstrations, amount of booth space (square
feet), design, general appeal, and layout of the exhibit,
and sometimes location [4]. According to Swandby [22],
the primary function of the exhibit is “selective attrac-
tion.” Therefore, a measure of performance can be stated
as:
Number of interested visitors who visited the firm’s
P, =
Number of interested visitors at the show
where an interested visitor means a visitor interested in
the types of products exhibited by the firm. The key
factors that have an impact on the ability of an exhibit
to attract its potential audience follow.
1. SIZE OF THE BOOTH. The size of the booth for a small
firm is limited by the available (small) budget. Ideally,
a firm should decide booth size relative to the number of
attendees interested in its products, but the fact is that
most small to medium-size companies have booths that
are undersized relative to the number interested in their
products.
Swandby [23] offers a simple “how to” approach for
calculating open exhibit space, that taken up by visitors
and exhibit personnel, and occupied space, that taken up
by products, display tables, and such.
268
Given that most small to medium-size firms will have
a limited amount of space they can afford and most will
be undersized, they will have to carefully control the other
factors which have an impact on their performance in
terms of attracting the interested visitors. It should be
understood that the relation of exhibit size relative to the
number of interested people is a very dominant factor so
as to have enough capacity to handle those attracted.
Control of the other factors will not completely overcome
an undersized exhibit. However, these other factors can
ensure that the firm gets the most out of the investment.
2. PRODUCTSELECTION. Product interest is a “natural
drawing card.” If people are interested in seeing a com-
pany’s type of products there is a good chance of attract-
ing them into the exhibit. More and more trade shows
are providing audience quality information, and in par-
ticular, product interest data. With such information,
firms should devote more space, emphasis and promi-
nence in their exhibit to those products which elicit the
highest levels of interest.
For example, Zimmer, a medical supply company spe-
cializing in orthopaedic surgical equipment and instru-
ments, discovered that product interest rather than the
size of product lines was a useful guide to space allo-
cation. For years, Zimmer planned its exhibit for the
AORN (Association of Operating Room Nurses) show
based on product line. The system was not very suc-
cessful. In fact, nearly 50% of the exhibit space was
being devoted to orthopaedic products, yet surveys
showed that only 17% of the audience was interested in
those products, and, even more significant, only 5% in-
dicated plans to buy those products. Using this data,
booth
Zimmer’s director of meeting services developed a new
’
exhibit space allocation based on visitor product interest.
This had a significant impact in making the exhibit more
functional and more focused on the nurses’ interest [24].
3. LOCATIONOF BOOTH. Research indicates that location
by itself (front, back, left, right, center of hall, etc.) is
a minor factor in determining performance. However,
there are factors that can affect traffic to particular ex-
hibits. Probably the two biggest factors affecting traffic
to exhibits are traffic flow problems created by floor plan
layout, and in very large shows, the use of multiple build-
ings or facilities.
The overwhelming majority of shows are held in one
facility. Therefore, the primary concern for most exhib-
itors should be with the layout of the floor plan. Com-
panies should try to select exhibits on aisles where there
is a logical flow of traffic, preferably where traffic can
flow from the front to the rear of the hall without being
diverted. They should avoid areas of irregular traffic flow
such as alcoves (either in the facility itself or created by
temporary food service areas or registration areas), split
end aisles (where traffic has an option of going in more
than one direction), or aisles that dead-end (either at the
back of the hall or at larger island displays). These kinds
of situations disturb the flow of traffic often creating
pockets of dead areas. In large shows using multiple
facilities there can often be some drop-off in traffic to
remote halls. For example, at the 1990 International Man-
ufacturing Technology Show which filled all three halls
of McCormick Place (East, North, and West) there was
a drop-off in traffic to the West Hall [25].
If relegated to a poor location companies should con-
sider increased pre- and at-show promotion to make peo-
ple aware of the exhibit’s location and presence at the
show. For example, Micron Technology, a manufacturer
of computer memory enhancement components, found
that enticing show visitors into Micron’s technology room
was never a concern. The real challenge was getting them
close enough to be enticed, convincing visitors to aban-
don the alluring clatter of the main show hall and take a
hike down a secluded hallway. The result was a steady
booth traffic that more than doubled Micron’s lead count
over the previous year [26].
4. PRE-SHOW PROMOTION. More and more exhibitors
promote the fact that they will be exhibiting in a particular
show. Pre-show promotion is probably more important
for the smaller exhibitors than for the larger exhibitors.
Many shows make their advance registration lists avail-
able for pre-show promotion. Customer and prospects
lists should also be used. In the Micron example cited
above, the firm developed an extensive pre-show cam-
paign, including a catchy pre-show mailer that went to
10,000 targeted prospects.
5. PRODUCT DEMONSTRATIONS. At a trade show, you
might have less than five seconds to attract someone’s
attention, to relate something that’s important enough to
them to make them want to enter your booth and ask for
more information [27]. Product demonstrations are a
good way of selectively attracting interested visitors. A
demonstration does not have to be a formal elaborate
presentation to be effective-it could be an informal one-
on-one demonstration between a salesperson and visitor.
A good example is a shopping cart manufacturer at the
1990 Supermarket Industry Exposition. This was a very
small exhibit (10’ X 20’ backwall) in a very large show
(500,000 sq. ft. of exhibit space). The exhibit had nothing
more than a shopping cart in the middle of the exhibit
filled with lead balls and a big sign stating “World’s
Strongest Shopping Cart.” At a very low cost this com-
pany effectively conveyed what they were selling and the
primary feature of their product. It was simple, low cost,
somewhat dramatic and selective as far as whom it was
intended to attract.
Booth Contact
Attracting attendees to a booth is only the first step.
Unless booth personnel seize the advantage of the situ-
ation, the prospects may soon be down the aisle at a
competitor’s booth and may eventually be “lost.” The
proportion of interested visitors at the booth with whom
contact is established is another aspect of performance-
how good were the booth personnel. This measure may
be viewed as a summary of the impact of factors such as
adequate booth staffing and training of booth salespeople
in terms of seeking out the right prospect to talk with.
Cox [28] has indicated that the most important factor
affecting the memorability for visiting an exhibit is per-
formance of booth personnel. This is supported by a
Trade Show Bureau study indicating that once at a trade
show, the number-one turnoff for visitors is booth per-
sonnel who are not knowledgeable [ 131. Evidence from
several other studies also indicates that poor overall rat-
ings are attributed mainly to the people working at the
booth [29]-“either they were rated below average by
the visitors to the booth, they were not aggressive in
contacting booth visitors or there were too few or too
many people staffing the booth.” This measure of per-
formance may therefore be stated as:
Number of interested visitors who visited the booth and were contacted
P2 =
Number of interested visitors who visited the booth
The interested visitor who came to the booth and with
whom contact was established may potentially be con-
verted into a sales lead. Although firms can have several
selling and nonselling objectives [ 151 for attending a trade
show (e.g., enhancing corporate image, servicing current
customers, generating leads for their products, gathering
competitive intelligence, etc. [34]), research studies have
shown that generation of leads is typically the primary
reason why firms participate in trade shows [4,6]. The
rate of conversion also reflects another aspect of booth
personnel performance-the salesperson’s knowledge of
the firm’s product(s)/service(s), ability to answer ques-
tions and general responsiveness to the visitor’s needs.
The conversion rate, of course, also depends on other
269
“uncontrollable” factors such as the firm’s reputation in
the industry relative to other firms, quality of the products
relative to competition, and so on. The end result for the
firm, however, is that the salesperson should be able to
generate sufficient “goodwill” with the right visitor so
that the visitor believes further discussions with the firm
is warranted. In essence, contact becomes a sales lead
that the firm is looking for at the show. Therefore, a third
performance measure may be stated as:
Number of leads generated
P, =
Number of interested visitors at the booth with whom contact was made’
Listed below are some of the key factors that can affect
the degree and quality of personal contact at the booth.
I. NUMBER OF PERSONNELON DUTY. The average ex-
hibitor today achieves personal contact with about 63%
of the interested visitors attracted to their exhibit. The
single most important factor affecting the ability to make
contact is the number of personnel on duty. Ideally, the
number of personnel needed on duty should be based on
the number of interested visitors that an exhibit has a
good chance of reaching (see Swandby’s 1231 method of
calculation).
2. STAFFSELECTION. Exhibit Surveys, Inc., amarketing
research firm specializing in the evaluation of trade shows
and exhibits, had a client in the computer industry whose
exhibit personnel consistently received “poor” ratings
from their visitors. A telephone follow-up survey of re-
spondents showed that the two primary reasons for poor
ratings were insufficient product knowledge or inability
to answer questions. This company was staffing its ex-
hibit primarily with sales and marketing personnel while
many of its visitors were technical personnel. The so-
lution was to have technical personnel demonstrate the
products, or at least have them available to answer ques-
tions. Therefore, it is very important to match the type
of booth personnel to the interests and background of
those interested in the products. A good audience profile
should indicate the mix of sales and marketing, technical
and management personnel needed to staff the exhibit.
3. BOOTH PERSONNELTRAINING. Trade show selling is
extremely fast-paced and highly competitive. The aver-
age contact may last only 3 to 5 minutes, and at a busy
show, a salesperson might interact with 20 or more pros-
pects and customers in an hour [3 I]. For example, at a
recent two-day, IO-hour Alliance of Canada Travel
Agents trade show, more than 400 agents visited an ex-
hibitor, or about 40 visitors per hour-more than most
salespeople call on in an entire week. At a trade show,
270
the sales team must be prepared to quickly meet as many
prospects as they can, qualify their leads, then move on
to the next ones [27]. Therefore, training is critical for
booth personnel. Nearly every aspect of the typical field
sales call is either modified or reversed [27].
Visitor quality averages indicate that about three out
of ten visitors who come into an exhibit and talk to a
sales person are planning to buy one or more of that
company’s products. For smaller to medium-size com-
panies that generally exhibit fewer products, the average
may be a little lower. This ratio of “buyers” to “lookers”
is important to understand. In total, the average attendee
spends only 7.8 hours at a trade show. In order to max-
imize effectiveness, personnel need to separate the “look-
ers” from the “buyers” in a relatively short time.
Personnel in multiproduct exhibits also need to qualify
for other products in the booth. A visitor may not be
planning to buy the product for which a particular sales
person is responsible, but he or she may be planning to
buy some other type of product in the exhibit.
Qualifying is just one aspect of training. Booth eti-
quette, exhibit objectives, how to deal with the press if
they come into the booth, dress code, understanding the
audience profile, booth duty schedule, using lead taking
systems, how to handle competitors who visit the exhibit,
and boothmanship techniques are other potential areas to
address in training.
The most tangible result of good training is in the
number of qualified leads obtained. But, there is also an
intangible benefit. Good training can enhance the profes-
sional image of the exhibit, staff and company. In an era
of relationship building between vendor and customer,
this could prove to be a very big benefit of training.
For example, Caterpillar conducted a $15,600 three-
phase study of the Concrete and Aggregates Show (Con-
agg). Held in Las Vegas, NV, in February 1986, the
show attracted 14,038 people. The research gave the
company, “a real good picture of what went on at the
show,” according to J. Edward Roberts, Caterpillar’s
manager for conventions and exhibits. For example, the
data showed that exhibit personnel weren’t performing
optimally, partly because they hadn’t been trained for
trade show selling. Caterpillar subsequently launched a
training program for exhibit personnel. Research reveal-
ing attendees’ awareness, preferences and buying plans
made Caterpillar a more effective exhibitor, Mr. Roberts
adds. Such data helped Caterpillar determine which
shows are “worthwhile” and why Caterpillar missed
leads [32].
DATA COLLECTION marily from a single type of function or industry). The
type of show(s) in which a firm participates plays an
Our study involved working in collaboration with four important role in determining performance [34-361. For
firms-an exhibit research firm, Exhibit Surveys Inc., example, Kerin and Cron [ 161 found that firms with suc-
that conducts audience surveys of hundreds of industrial cessful programs do not concentrate participation as much
trade shows and three of their client firms that actively on horizontal shows as on vertical shows.
participate in trade shows. The client firms were all from A great amount of variation in performance indicators
the telecommunications industry and maintained accurate across shows has been reported [37-381. One reason for
records on leads generated by them at the shows they this variation is the nature of the show audience. Atten-
participated in. All three client firms generally compete dees differ in terms of the level of interest in products
with each other in the same product markets. exhibited at a show, plans to actually buy the product
1. FIRM SIZE. We operationalized firm size by first con- within a short time, and so on. Another reason is the
sidering one of several conventional measures, namely, high degree of specialization found in many shows. For
market share [33]. We then examined additional measures example, vertical segmentation in the computer industry
specific to trade show activity for the three firms. Based has resulted in separate major shows for the medical
on these measures, indicated in Table 1, we classified industry, the legal profession, the banking field, the fi-
one firm as “large” (Firm 1) and two firms as “small” nancial community, and others. A computer exhibitor
(Firms 2 and 3). It can be seen that, in comparison to often will find a significant difference in its performance
the two small firms, the large firm had a much greater across these shows. According to Mee [39], this trend is
proportion of attendees at the show who were interested accelerating significantly.
in its products and a higher degree of awareness and name Therefore, in order to have a meaningful comparison
recognition among attendees for products exhibited at the of performance of two firms, it is important to control
show. Also, the large firm’s sales force previously had for the different mix of shows that the firms may have
called on a greater percentage of visitors who came to attended. In our study we focus only on those shows that
the booth. The large firm also tends to have a larger booth were “common” to the large and small firms, that is,
and a greater number of booth personnel at the show. those permitting a head-to-head comparison. For the pe-
2. VARIABILITY ACROSSSHOWS. Shows have been tra- riod 1987-89, we found ten shows that satisfied this cri-
ditionally classified in two ways: (1) geographic coverage terion. Furthermore, as confirmed by managers in these
(national versus regional shows), and (2) market coverage firms and industry experts, the shows considered in our
(horizontal, shows that attract a broad audience, i.e., study represent the major trade shows that most firms in
attendees from many different industries, versus vertical, the telecommunications industry attend.
shows that attract a narrow audience, i.e., attendees pri- 3. DEFINITION OF A LEAD. There may be differences
across firms in terms of what is considered a sales lead.
TABLE 1 For example, Firm A with a solid reputation and image
Exhibit-Related Indicators of a Large and Small Firm in the industry may establish a high “cut-off” level for
itself in classifying a contact with a prospect as a lead.
Firm 1 Firm 2 Firm 3
(small) (small)
On the other hand, Firm B that is trying to establish itself
(law)
might like to go after every lead it can find and therefore
Average number of attendees
interested in firm’s products 14,017 6,483 9.636
set a lower “cut-off” level for itself. This aspect affects
Number of attendees interested our third performance measure, the contacts-to-leads ra-
as % of total attendees 89% 64% 68% tio. Though it is important to control for this variation,
Firm awareness and
recognition (%)
it is not easy to do so since the cut-off levels tend to be
19% 5% 5%
Booth visitors with pre-show fairly subjective. We did, however, observe a common
sales calls (%) 14.5% 10.9% 9.0% theme across the three firms, as explained to us by the
Interested attendees with
exhibit manager of each firm, that urged the booth sa-
pre-show sales calls (W) 9.6% 5.1% 3.3%
Number of booth personnel lesperson to be careful and rigorous in screening the vis-
recommended 31 16 16 itors to the booth to ascertain potential customers among
Size of booth recommended
them. It is, however, quite likely that some variation did
(sq. ft.) 1,533 800 790
exist across the three firms in terms of how the booth

271
salespeople actually implemented these instructions. This TABLE 2
aspect was clearly beyond our control, and we recognize Comparison of Attraction Efficiency for the Three Firms*

it as a limitation that would exist until some form of

Ftrm 1 Firm 2 Firm 3
“industry standard” is established. Show Number (228-349) + (201-268)’ (172-325) +
We assembled data for ten common shows over the
I 0.468 0.225 0.282
period 1987-89, in which the three firms had participated 2 0,.5x7 0.440 0.505
and for which an audience survey had been conducted 3 0.656 0.303 0.288
4 0.670 0.304 0.346
by the exhibit research firm. We obtained lead data from
5 0.584 0.181
the client firms. The data on audience-related variables 6 0.508 0.260 0.337
for the shows was collected by the exhibit research firm 7 0.6% 0.302
using a questionnaire which was mailed to a probability 8 0.745 0.293 0.414
Y 0.522 0.225 0.252
sample. The sample size ranged from 769 to 1,498 and IO 0.772 0.274
was drawn from the registration list at the close of each
show. The return rate for the mailing averaged 30% *Numbers represent proportion of the interested crudirncr that was attracted
to the firm’s booth. All shows are “common” shows: a head-to-head com-
across all ten shows. This resulted in a total sample size parison is being made:
of over 3,200 respondents across the ten shows, ranging Firm I vs. Firm 2 S = 0 L,,,,, = 6
from 288 to 404 per show. Firm I vs. Firm 3 s = 0 s,,,,,,, = 4
Firm 2 vs. Firm 3 .s = 1 L,‘,, = 2%
These post-show surveys provided comprehensive in-
where S = smaller sum of Ggned ranks; S,,,,,,,,, = critical value of S at 5%
formation on a number of characteristics such as demo- significance.
graphics of show attendees, number of attendees ‘Range of sample size across shows for each lirm.

interested in client tirms’ products, number of visitors to

client firms’ booths. For this study, we only used the
responses for those questions that were relevant in meas- impact on attracting the potential visitor, such as space,
uring the performance indicators mentioned earlier. For location, pre-show promotion, demonstration. This helps
example, to arrive at the total audience interested in the to improve leverage.
firm’s products, we examined the following question: 2. PERFORMANCEMEASURE 2. For the second perfor-
“What products were you interested in seeing at the mance measure, making contact with interested visitors
show‘?” who have entered the booth, we observe a somewhat
surprising finding (see Table 3). The two small firms
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION appear to perform just as well as the large firm. At a few
shows, in fact, they actually performed even better than
The data-analysis procedure basically involves a
paired-comparison of each performance indicator be- TABLE 3
tween the firms across all shows with the observations Comparison of Contact Efficiency for the Three Firms*
for each show being treated as a pair. We employ the
Show Number Firm 1 Firm 2 Firm 3
Wilcoxon paired difference sign-rank test to examine if
the difference in performance between each pair of firms I 0.656 0.625 0.777
2 0.641 0.718 0.714
in each stage is statistically significant. 3 0.59x 0.684 0.579
1. PERFORMANCEMEASURE 1. The results of our analy- 4 0.596 0.652 0.523
sis of the first performance measure, the proportion of 5 0.492 0.4.54
6 0.642 0.772 0.620
interested visitors at the show who were attracted to the
7 0.536 0.679
firm’s booth, are described in Table 2. It is evident that 8 0.758 0.560 0.706
the large firm performed significantly better (p < 0.05) Y 0.722 0.852 0.759
than the two small firms in attracting its audience. In fact, IO 0.684 0.616

it is seen that in every single show for which we did a *Numbers represent proportion of the audience inieresred and nftructrd to
comparison, the large firm does much better than either the firm’s booth with whom the booth salespeople were able to establish
contact. Comparisons:
small firm. This result is fairly revealing for the small
Firm I vs. Firm 2 s = I3 S 6
exhibitor. The implication is quite clear-small firms Firm I vs. Firm 3 s = 17.5 s::::::::= 4
must carefully look at the different factors that have an Firm 2 vs. Firm 3 s = I1.S s,,,,,,,, = 2

272
 The double jeopardy issue

the large firm. The difference in performance is, how- by some aspects of training the booth personnel; however,
ever, not statistically significant at the 5% level. This an important factor may be related to the perceived rel-
suggests that the small firms, in this study, were com- ative quality of the product(s) and the image and repu-
petitive with the large firm in terms of (1) having an tation of the firms within the specific industry. Clearly,
appropriate number of personnel staffing the booth in some of these factors are outside the small firm’s control
relation to anticipated traffic and (2) adequate training of at least in the short run.
their staff in screening out visitors to the booth and iden- While we must exercise caution in interpreting our
tifying potential buyers among them. preliminary results, our findings seem to suggest the ex-
3. PERFORMANCE MEASURE3. For this performance istence of the “double jeopardy” phenomenon in trade
measure we compare the ratio of the number of leads show activity in the following sense: The small firm at-
generated with the number of interested visitors with tracts a smaller proportion of its relevant audience to its
whom contact was established at the booth. Since leads booth at the show. Having attracted the interested visitors
represent the total number of leads obtained by each firm to its booth, the small firm seems to perform just as well
at the show, we projected the sample proportions to the as the large firm in establishing contact with them. How-
show level based on the total attendance figures for each ever, after establishing contact, the small firm once again
show. The performance results in this stage are shown seems to convert a smaller proportion of the contacted
in Table 4. We see that the large firm (Firm 1) tends to visitors into leads. The small firm thus appears to suffer
perform significantly better than one of the small firms twice in a direct head-to-head comparison with a large
(Firm 2) in converting contacts into leads (p < 0.05). firm. This double jeopardy phenomenon has some the-
The large firm also performs better than the other small oretical basis. It is illustrated in the case of frequently
firm (Firm 3), but this difference is not statistically sig- purchased consumer products where a small brand ex-
nificant. Given our result in the previous stage, this find- periences a twofold disadvantage, it has far fewer buyers
ing is interesting, because it suggests that the small firm than the large brand, and, in addition, its buyers tend to
is not able to “convert” the contacts into leads as effi- buy it less often [40]. It would appear that the small
ciently as the large firm. This may, in part, be explained exhibitor cannot do much with the contact-leads ratio in
the short run given the firm’s image, reputation and stand-
TABLE 4 ing in the industry. However, the small exhibitor could,
Comparison of Contacts to Leads Ratio for the Three Firms’ and probably should, pay careful attention to the mix of
Show Number Firm 1 Firm 2 Firm 3
factors relevant to attracting its potential audience to the
booth.
I 12.93 12.87 II.31
2 11.23 18.48 14.59
3 8.35 6.64 6.62 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH
4 14.28 20.00 13.96
5 22.93 51.81
6 14.32 26.66 II.87
Our article presents a general structure to assess per-
7 9.43 15.17 formance at a trade show by considering visitor contact
8 9.69 10.97 12.50 and interaction at a firm’s booth. Our findings indicate a
9 9.36 17.54 24.93
16.86
significantly better performance by the large firm in at-
IO 16.50
tracting its potential visitors to the booth and converting
*Numbers represent how many contacts the firm had to make in order to contacts to leads. This suggests that there may be an
generate one lead at the show. Comparisons:
Firm I vs. Firm 2 s= 5 L,,,,, = 6
equivalent of the “double jeopardy” phenomenon op-
Firm I vs. Firm 3 s = 10 S‘,,,U = 4 erating in the case of trade shows. The factors affecting
Firm 2 vs. Firm 3 S = 8 Xv,,,,, = 2 each performance measure were discussed. As an ex-

273
 ploratory application, we compared the performance of 4. Trade Show Bureau, Erhihitm-Their Trade Show Prcrctice.x Research
Rqmrt #X150. Trade Show Bureau. Denver. Co.. 1988.
three firms-one large and two small-across common
5 Belle, Daniel C.. and Barczak, Gloria J.. Using Industrial Trade Shows
shows.
to Improve New Product Development, The Journtrl of Bu.sinr.\.\ trnd
There are two important implications for small firms Indu.rtritrl Murketinl: 5, 43-56 ( 1990).
as seen from our descriptive study, given that the small 6. Jackson, Donald W.. Jr.. Keith, Janet E.. and Burdick, Richard K., The
firm chooses to compete directly with other (large) firms Relative Importance of Various Promotional Elements in Different In

in the same product market. First, it identifies the small dustrial Purchase Situations. Journcrl of‘Adwrti.\ing 16, 25-33 ( 1987).

firm’s strength at the trade show-the ability of sales- 7. Parasuraman. A.. The Relative Importance of Industrial Promotions
Tools. Industricrl Mrrrketing Munu,yunerzt 10, 277728 I ( 19X I ).
people at the booth to efficiently make contact with the
8. Trade Show Bureau, Rrtrc~h Your Prosprca ,fir Lest ot Trcrdr Sho~cs.
visitors who are clearly prospects for the firm’s products. Resrurc~h Report #SM/N. Trade Show Bureau. Denver. Cal., 1991.
This is not a small achievement, since it indicates that 9. Banting. Peter M., and Blenkhom, David L., The Role of Industrial Trade
the small firm in our study is deploying an expensive and Shows, Industricrl Mnrketinx Montr,qvnmt 3, 285-295 ( 1974).
precious resource (personnel) quite effectively at the trade IO. Faria, A. J., and Dickinson, J. R., What Kinds of Companies
Use Trade
shows. The small firm can continue to maintain this “par- Shows Most-And Why, Busu~exc Morke/ittg. ISOL (1986).

ity” with the large firm. Secondly, our study highlights II Lilien. Gary L.. A Descriptive Model of the Trade-Show Budgeting De-
cision Process. /ndu.wiul Marketing Marxqqnrnt 12, 25-29 ( 19X3).
areas of major weakness for the small firm-attracting
12 Tannebaum. Jeffrey, Trade Shows Can Pay Off for New Firms. Wall
potentially interested attendees and converting contacts Street Jortmu~, January I I, lY89. BI
into leads. There may be limited degrees of freedom for 13. Bertrand, Kate. Survey Finds Trade Shows Influence Buying Decisions,
the small firm in addressing the latter disadvantage, at Businex\ Mtrrketing. 34 ( I Y90).
least in the short run. However, the small exhibitor could 14. Marlow, Paula. Going for the Bold, Busines.\ Murkrting. A 14-19 (Fall
gain some leverage by employing a proper combination 1991).

of different factors like space, location, pre-show pro- IS Bonoma. Thomas V., Get More out of Your Trade Shows. Harwrd
Businrss Re\VeM. 61, 75-83 ( 1983).
motion, demonstration and product mix.
16 Kerin, Roger A., and Cron, William L.. Assessing Trade Show Functions
Our research study and findings must be placed in
and Performance: An Exploratory Study, Journal of Marketing 51, 87-
proper perspective. We believe that it is useful to consider 94 (1987).
trade show performance as consisting of several com- I7 Gopalakrishna, Srinath. and Williams, Jerome D., Planning and Perfor-
ponents. Such an analysis can help a firm identify po- mance Assessment of Industrial Trade Shows: An Exploratory Study,
Intemutionul Jour~~11 of Rrsrrrrch in Murketing 9, 207-224, 1992.
tentially “weak links” in the system; that is, a firm may
18 Carman, James M., Evaluation of Trade Show Exhibitions. Cu/ifi,micr
find out that it is doing well on some indices but not so
Mancrgrmrnt Review I I, 35-44 (1968).
well on others. Our application to one single industry,
19 Cavanaugh, Suzette. Setting Objectives and Evaluating the Effectiveness
telecommunications, must be considered as a preliminary of Trade Show Exhibits, Journal ofMarketing 40, IOt-I03 (1976).
step, Replication of this approach across several indus- 20 Cunningham, M. T., and White, J. G., The Role of Exhibitions in In-
tries with a larger data base is clearly an important future dustrial Marketing-An Evaluation of the International Machine Tool
step, We believe this would also lead to the establishment Exhibition, Industrirrl Marketing Murtrrpnent 3, 229-242 ( 1974).
of norms or trade show performance standards for dif- 21 Trade Show Bureau, Trade Show Success Indicators: Audience Quulity
19K4&/989: Resrcrrch Report #ACi22. Trade Show Bureau, Denver, Cal.,
ferent classes of firms in different industries. These stan- 1991.
dards would enable the creation of an easy, yet valuable, 22 Swandby. Richard K., How to Improve Your Trade Show Performctnc~e-
tool for exhibit managers to assess their firm’s perfor- Meusurab/y. Trade Show Bureau, Denver, Cal.. 1988.
mance against their competitors. 23 Swandby, Richard K., Selecting Space.. How Much and Where, Ex-
hibitor. 4-6 (1982).

24 Christman, Chris. Product Space: One Less Random Decision, Exhibitor

10, 14-15 (1985).

REFERENCES 25 Exhibit Surveys, Inc., Intemutionul Manufacturtng Technology ShowSur-

vey, Exhibit Surveys, Inc., Red Bank, N.J., 1990.

I Face Up to Winning Exhibit Design, Business Marketing. 82 (1988). 26 Wallentine, Lois, Energizing Micron’s Lousy Location, E,rhibitor, 60-
61 (January 1990).
2. Marketers Say They’ll Boost Spending, Bu.sinrss Marketing, 3 I-32,
(1990). 27 Hatch, Michael J., Improving Your Sales Success at Trade Shows, Busi-
ness Marketing. A26-28 (Fall I99 I ).
3. American Business Press, Specialized Business Publications: The Mor-
krting Effectiveness Study Results Are In. American Business Press, New 28 Cox, Jonathan, With Help, Buyers Do Remember Your Exhibit, Industrial
York, 1990. Marketing, 80-83 (198 I).

274
29. Cox, Jonathan M., How Effective Is Your Exhibit? Successful Meetings, 35. Rich, Melanie, Regional Shows Give Small Marketers an Even Break,
59961 (1983). Marketing News, 15 (1985).

30. Trade Show Bureau, Exhibit Management Practices-Setting Objectives 36. Swandby, Richard K., Selecting the Right Show, Exhibitor3, 1-4 (1984).
and the Evaluation of Results: Reseurch Report #2010. Trade Show 31. Cox, Jonathan M., and Chapman, Edward, Contacts to Leads: What’s
Bureau, Denver, Cal., 1986. Your Score? Exhibitor, 8, 12 (1984).
31. Resnick, Keith, 8 Steps to Sales Success, Business Marketing, A20-21 38. Swandby, Richard K., Cox, Jonathan M., and Sequeira, Ian K., Trade
(Fall 1991). Shows Poised for 1990s Growth, Business Marketing, 46-52 (1990).
32. Bertrand, Kate, Talking Turkey on Trade Shows, Business Marketing, 39. Mee, William W., Trade Shows: This Marketing Medium Means Busi-
94-99 (March 1987). ness, Association Management, 50-56 (1988).
33. Reid, Stan, The Impact of Size on Export Behavior in Small Firms, in 40. Ehrenberg, Andrew S. C., Goodhardt, Gerald J., and Barwise, T. Patrick,
M. R. Czinkota and G. Tesar, eds., E.rport Management. Praeger, New Double Jeopardy Revisited, Journal of Marketing 54, 82-91 (1990).
York, 19-38, 1982.
34. Bertrand, Kate, High-Tech Competition Breeds Exhibit Options, Business
Marketing. 70-76 (I 989).

275