AD-EX International: Tradeshows and Exhibit Design

Cook Medical

allen — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 21:45:48 +0000

Telogis – DistribuTECH

allen — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 23:46:33 +0000

Blue Ant

admin — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 19:44:23 +0000

Cook Medical

admin — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 19:42:58 +0000

Hot Wheels

admin — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 19:39:45 +0000

Blue Ant

admin — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 19:38:03 +0000

Viva

admin — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 19:36:10 +0000

Mattel

admin — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 19:34:49 +0000

Exhibit Performance Characteristics

admin — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 19:32:30 +0000

With the focus of corporate management on measuring ROI, companies often think of measurement as only assessing bottom-line results from exhibiting (i.e., message communication, brand enhancement, awareness building, lead generation, sales from leads, PR achieved, etc.). Measuring bottom-line results is important, but we believe that measurement should do more than measure ROI. If ROI is not good, what are the reasons? Is it the fault of the show, the exhibit, or the personnel working the exhibit? Listed below are three of the 12 top-line indicators of exhibit performance that Exhibit Surveys tracks.

Exhibit Attraction is the percentage of an exhibitor’s Potential Audience who remembered visiting the company’s exhibit. The function of the physical exhibit is to selectively attract its Potential Audience from among the total audience at the show. Factors which most often determine success in this regard include: awareness for the company and its products among the audience, pre and at-show promotion, exhibit design and graphics, demos and attention-getting techniques, interest in products or services exhibited, and exhibit size. Over the past several years, exhibitors have been more successful in selectively attracting their Potential Audience.

Exhibit Efficiency is the percentage of a company’s Potential Audience with whom they had meaningful engagement. Meaningful engagement includes face-to-face interactions like talking to exhibit staff, viewing a demonstration, and/or requesting follow-up. Factors which impact Exhibit Efficiency are number of demos and personnel on duty relative to size of Potential Audience, quality and performance of staff and demos, alignment of staff profile with attendee profile, and staff training. Average Exhibit Efficiency peaked in 2002 when attendance was low for most shows due to the impact of 9/11 and the economy. Exhibit Efficiency has steadily decreased since 2002 because as attendance at shows has rebounded, companies have not committed additional resources of staff and demos to realize their full potential. Exhibit Efficiency is one of the most important indicators of performance because there is strong correlation between the level and quality of meaningful engagement in the exhibit and the results that can be achieved.

The average Cost-per-Visitor Reached (CVR) figures are based on the total direct cost of exhibiting. The Attraction CVR is the cost per attendee who recalled having some exposure to the exhibit and is a part of the exhibitor’s Potential Audience. The Exhibit Efficiency CVR is the cost per attendee who is part of the Potential Audience who recalls having meaningful engagement. These figures differ from cost per lead or cost per inquiry because they are based on all visitors who are part of the Potential Audience and not just leads or inquiries. The Attraction CVR has stabilized and actually declined as exhibitors have controlled costs better while continuing to selectively attract a high percentage of their Potential Audience. The Exhibit Efficiency CVR has increased because exhibitors are not taking full advantage of having meaningful engagement with those attracted. In fact, Exhibit Efficiency is declining which is magnifying the increase in the Exhibit Efficiency CVR.

Value Proposition in a Down Economy

admin — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 19:28:08 +0000

by Susan Hall, IT Business Edge
Apr 24, 2009 11:44:33 AM

Susan Hall spoke with Joe Federbush, vice president of sales and marketing for Exhibit Surveys, about how trade shows are evolving.

Hall: How are trade shows changing?
Federbush: They’re changing in attendance, exhibit space and sponsorships. The sponsors are under scrutiny of proving the value of trade shows. A lot of companies are in many shows, so they not only have to prove the value of trade shows, but they also have to find the right shows to be in at the right investment level.

So this is really the show producer’s chance to shine. There are really two responsibilities: The show producer has to get the bodies there and the exhibitors need to be marketing smarter to get the right people into their booths, not just drawing huge crowds with attention-getting techniques.

The shows need to be much more targeted in communicating their value proposition. It can’t just be “Oh, there will be 10,000 buyers!” It has to be about the quality of the audience, not just the quantity. That’s a big change. People are so focused on numbers. Now the focus has to be on the quality. They really have to drive that value proposition. It’s hey, numbers are down, there’s no question about that. The tech industry is seeing some down numbers in attendance and square footage, but research shows the quality remains strong. Companies might be sending fewer people, but they are still sending people and they’re more of the decision-makers.

Hall: Is it the economy or is there a problem of relevance?
Federbush: It’s directly related to the economy. We’ve been measuring certain audience quality and activity characteristics since 1968. But looking at six recessionary periods — I’m looking at one of our metrics called Audience Interest Factor, and this is basically the percentage of people who stop to talk or take literature at the booths they visit – and as I look at this through the last six recessionary periods, it still remains relatively strong. Looking at it from a trend graph perspective, we don’t see any significant decreases. Looking at buying plans of the audience, asking what they might be buying in the next 12 months, we see some pretty consistent buying plans. When we look at the recession of the late ’80s, going into the early ’90s, into the recession of 2001, 2002, the buying plans really remain relatively strong compared with the years prior and the years following the recessionary period. After recessionary periods, we tend to see some spikes in some of these metrics, like buying plans, which kind of carry the torch for the following years.

Hall: What is the benefit for the attendees?
Federbush: I think there are three main ones: It gives the buyer the opportunity to see many vendors in one place. It’s one of the most cost-effective ways for an exhibitor to market and sell their products, that one-to-many approach. One of the main reasons people attend, especially in the high-tech arena, is that they really want to see what’s new. It also gives them the opportunity to compare products and features for future purchases. It also gives them the opportunity to network with peers. We’re talking about the value of face-to-face. They’re not getting that from virtual events, from the Internet and other mass marketing mediums out there.

We recently did a study for a client who was thinking of extending the event through a virtual event. So we tested the waters in terms of would people be interested in this virtual event even if they cannot make it to this year’s conference. Even people who could not make it said they probably wouldn’t make it [to the virtual event] because they doubted the value they’d receive without the face-to-face. This was just one user conference, but they really value the face-to-face, the networking, the ability to ask questions and it keeps them focused. When people are working from their desktop, there’s so many ways to be interrupted.

Hall: Could some aspects of shows be done better online?
Federbush: I think it’s a complement. Whether it’s virtual, whether it’s live blogging, posting messages, whatever the case may be, social networking. It don’t think any of it is in place of, it’s just a complement to, such as if there’s a keynote or sessions that attendees would really like to be at but their travel budget has been cut. It is a great way to extend the shelf life of an event. If they don’t want to go for three days or there’s only one speaker they really want to see, if they can stream that or provide that over the Internet, that’s great. But I don’t think that’s in place of events.

Hall: Will shows be substantially different in the next five, 10, 15 years?
Federbush: It’s hard to speculate, but if you look back over the last several decades when we have been in recessionary periods, the number of events has really increased over all industries, within high tech, specifically. As technology evolves, more vertical-type events evolve. We all learn during these down periods, what works and what doesn’t work. I definitely think there’s going to be a lot of changes, but I can’t imagine that trade shows will really be suffering in the long term. There’s nothing to indicate that.

Everybody has to not be trying to appeal to the masses but have a pretty tight value proposition. The attendees need to make it to their management team to say why they should be going and the shows need to be doing it to get the bodies there.