Marketing Intelligence & Planning

Trade show: who, what, why

Paul Herbig Bradley O’Hara Frederick A. Palumbo
Article information:
To cite this document:
Paul Herbig Bradley O’Hara Frederick A. Palumbo, (1998),"Trade show: who, what, why", Marketing Intelligence & Planning,
Vol. 16 Iss 7 pp. 425 - 435
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02634509810244444
Downloaded on: 30 January 2016, At: 15:40 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 60 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2838 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Downloaded by LULEA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 15:40 30 January 2016 (PT)

Srinath Gopalakrishna, Catherine A. Roster, Shrihari Sridhar, (2010),"An exploratory study of attendee activities
at a business trade show", Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 25 Iss 4 pp. 241-248 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/08858621011038199
Karl Hellman, (2005),"Strategy-driven B2B promotions", Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 20 Iss 1 pp.
4-11 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08858620510576748
Manfred Kirchgeorg, Kathrin Jung, Oliver Klante, (2010),"The future of trade shows: insights from a scenario analysis",
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 25 Iss 4 pp. 301-312 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08858621011038261

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:172900 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Trade show: who, what, why
Downloaded by LULEA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 15:40 30 January 2016 (PT)
Although trade shows are a
major portion of the market-
ing mix in the industrial
marketplace, second only to
personal selling and above
advertising, very little has
been researched on their
function in industrial market-
ing. This paper reports the
results of an extensive busi-
ness survey of trade show
usage, presents results,
compares results to previous
studies, provides analyses of
the results, and recommenda-
tions to businesses to
increase efficiency of trade
show performance. Study
indicates that few companies
engage regularly and exten-
sively in international trade
shows, although most see the
need. Also reports that the
evidence suggests that some
international companies
generate as much as 70 per
cent of their annual sales at
trade fairs.
This manuscript was funded
by a Faculty Research Grant
from Jacksonville State
University.
Marketing Intelligence &
Planning
16/7 [1998] 425–435
© MCB University Press
[ISSN 0263-4503]
Paul Herbig
Visiting Professor of Marketing, Management/Marketing Department, Graduate
School of International Trade and Business Administration, Texas A&M
International University, Laredo, Texas, USA
Bradley O’Hara
Department of Marketing and Finance, Southeastern Louisiana State University,
Hammond, Louisiana, USA
Frederick A. Palumbo
Department of Marketing, Sy Syms School of Business, Yeshiva University,
New York, USA
Trade shows – a review
Trade shows, expositions, scientific/techni-
cal conferences, conventions. The name may
vary but the basic function of the activity
represents a major industry marketing event.
They are “events that bring together, in a
single location, a group of suppliers who set
up physical exhibits of their products and
services from a given industry or discipline”
(Black, 1986). During 1988, in the USA alone,
over 100,000 firms exhibited at some 11,000
business trade shows and spent over $9 billion.
This must be compared to 1982’s 91,000 firms
which exhibited at some 8,000 trade shows at
a cost of $7 billion. In the ten-year period,
1980-1990, the number of US trade shows went
from 4,500 to 10,000. Show visitation has
reached at least 50 million. More than half of
all industrial shows sold all available exhibit
space – 2 million square feet could not be
accommodated. Demand for space is
predicted to more than double over the com-
ing decade. Giant Comdex 1990, with 118,000
attendees from over 100 countries and 1,850
companies, 2.2 million square feet of exhibit
space with over 1,900 accredited press from
throughout the world in attendance is
dwarfed by Germany’s Hanover Fair with
over 400,000 attendees and nearly 5,000 com-
panies.The trade show medium plays a much
larger role in Europe and other foreign coun-
tries than in the USA.
Trade shows accounted for over 22-25 per
cent of the typical US business market promo-
tional budget, second only to the personal
selling activity and ahead of print advertising
and direct mail. American businesses spend
annually approximately $9 billion for
exhibitors travel and labor costs and $12 bil-
lion for exhibit costs (1984 USA only). Trade
Show Bureau estimates the industry itself
generates $50 billion a year and is growing by
almost $1 billion a year. Growth of exhibit
space has averaged nearly 15 per cent annu-
ally during the 1970s, slowing down to a
smaller but sustainable 7-8 per cent during
the 1980s. However, the 1991-1992 recession cut
growth to 3 to 4 per cent. The number of firms
exhibiting at the 200 largest trade shows grew
7.7 per cent between 1986 and 1987. During the
1970s the number of new exhibitors increased
at an average annual increase of 3-4 per cent,
while in the 1980s it has exceeded 7 per cent
annually (Mee, 1988a, 1988b). Show atten-
dance at the major shows increased at an
average of 3 per cent per year during the
1970s, rising to more than 6 per cent during
the 1980s.
Advantages and disadvantages of
trade show usage
Trade shows rank second behind only on-site
selling in influencing buying decisions of
industrial purchases (Parasuraman, 1981;
O’Hara, 1991). Nearly 44 per cent of trade
show visitors travel more than 400 miles to
shows and spend more than $300 per person
in transportation costs alone to attend the
show.. The average delegate expenditures
nearly $1,000 per visit. A total of 85 per cent of
attendees having buying influence. The cost
per visitor is one-third of a personal sales call
(Trade Show Bureau, 1986a). In 1988, average
total costs per visitor (including space rental,
construction costs, freight, booth personal
travel, living expenses, and salaries) were
$133, still less than half the cost of a personal
sales call. It takes approximately 0.8 sales
calls on average to close a sale initiated by a
trade show lead while most estimates place
the number required by a field salesperson to
be five. The differential is about 3.5:1 in favor
of trade shows.
The advantages of using a trade show
include: a message delivered to a large num-
ber of qualified interested people (86 per cent
of all show attendees represent a buying
influence, are interested in a specific exhib-
ited product or service and have not been
called on lately by a sales representative);
introduction of new products to a large
[ 425 ]
 Paul Herbig, Bradley O’Hara
and Frederick A. Palumbo
Trade show: who, what, why
Marketing Intelligence &
Planning
16/7 [1998] 425–435
Downloaded by LULEA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 15:40 30 January 2016 (PT)
[ 426 ]
number of people; uncovering potential cus-
tomers; enhancing goodwill; and gaining free
company publicity. Other advantages inher-
ent in participating in trade shows include
noting that trade show activities can play a
major part in vendor evaluation and recogni-
tion (Bello and Barczak, 1990; Moriarty and
Spekman, 1984) due to their personal selling
process elements of: (1) identifying prospects,
(2) servicing current accounts, (3) introduc-
ing products, (4) improving corporate image,
(5) gathering competitor information, and (6)
selling (Bonoma, 1983; Kerin and Cron, 1987).
Trade shows provide the opportunity to affect
multiple phases of the industrial buying
process in one location; they can create
awareness in new prospects, reinforce exist-
ing customer relationships, provide product
demonstrations for evaluation, establish
relationships between vendors and prospects,
and allow sales of products on the spot. Trade
shows significantly influence the industrial
buying process during the need recognition
and vendor evaluation stages of the purchase
process (Moriarty and Spekman, 1984).
Trade shows do have their downside; the
annual budget allocation for trade shows
increased from $73,000 in 1978 to $212,000 by
1987. Costs can range up to $39 or more per
square foot, $7,800 for a 200 square foot booth,
yet space costs are only 15 per cent of a com-
pany’s total cost. Space rental costs have
more than doubled over the previous decade.
Tactical rather than strategic orientation
might account for finding that only 23 per
cent of executives think trade show effort is
very effective. All too often, a substantial
number of corporate marketing and manage-
ment executives still perceive trade shows as
non-selling activities or at best R and R or
social activities for those employees that do
attend (Skolnik, 1987). This poor opinion of
trade shows by executives is often exacer-
bated by the fact that only 56 per cent of firms
participating in trade shows have specific
objectives before participating in a given
show. Only 46 per cent of companies set goals
before they exhibit, half are wishy-washy, one
out of three exhibitors do not set quantifiable
objectives. A SMU study found that more than
40 per cent of all first-time exhibitors fail to
repeat, the typical exhibit reaches less than
60 per cent of its prospects, few exhibitors do
any preshow promotion to ensure that their
key prospects reach their booth, booth per-
sonnel training has improved but leaves
much to be desired, and lead qualification,
tracking, and return on investment evalua-
tion are functions unexplored by most
exhibitors (only 14 per cent claim they track
lead conversions to sales). Barely 17 per cent
of all exhibitors provide their management
executives with return on investment (ROI)
data. Is it any wonder that many executives
question the value of trade shows (Mee, 1988a;
1988b).
This is partly due to the fact that substan-
tive quantitative research on trade show
effectiveness has yet to be done and many
firms have failed to measure quantifiably the
return on their trade show investment. In the
midst of tens of thousands of visitors among
the thousand or so booths, the feeling exists
that a company gets lost in the crowd. This
problem is greatest at non-selling shows fea-
turing complex products for which the buy-
ing decision usually involves several people.
The buying process takes many months, if not
years, during which the role of the trade show
is minimized or even totally overlooked
(Sashi and Perretty, 1992).
Other disadvantages with trade shows
include taking salespeople away from their
territories; the crowded, confusing environ-
ment found in large shows, labor problems
and unions, proliferation and excessive fre-
quency of trade shows, and a high proportion
of sightseers. Bonoma (1983) adds unknown
effectiveness on return per dollar spent,diffi-
culty of measuring efficiency, high and rising
costs of participation, and a growing feeling
that shows are boondoggles, perks. With the
fortunes companies spend on trade shows,
surprisingly little is spent on researching its
effectiveness.
Proliferation of trade shows seems to be
occurring not only in both size and number,
but also in terms of specialization and region-
alization (Murphy, 1990). This is primarily
due to the ever-increasing diversification of
technology coupled with the medium’s appar-
ent cost effectiveness. Two factors behind the
trend from national to regional trade shows
are the escalating travel costs and the discov-
ery that most attendees to either national or
regional shows are basically regional in
nature.
Profiles of trade show exhibitors
and attendees
Most shows draw an exclusive audience that
cannot be reached by another show (54 per
cent of attendees did not attend any other
exposition in 1987, versus 52 per cent in 1990).
Most exhibitors (56 per cent) do not train the
people staffing their booths,78 per cent do not
promote their exhibit prior to the show, 83 per
cent do not analyze a show’s value based on
ROI, and as many as 80 per cent of leads are
never pursued. The average exhibitor
achieves personal contact with about 63 per
cent of the interested visitors attracted to the
 Paul Herbig, Bradley O’Hara
and Frederick A. Palumbo
Trade show: who, what, why
Marketing Intelligence &
Planning
16/7 [1998] 425–435
Downloaded by LULEA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 15:40 30 January 2016 (PT)
exhibit. The single most important factor
affecting the ability to make contact is the
number of personnel on duty. The five key
factors behind the go-no-go decision to attend
a trade show were: attendance/lead perfor-
mance, marketing synergy, show environ-
ment, participation costs, and staffing capa-
bilities (Kijewski et al., 1993).
What attracts people to an exposition (from
Trade Show Bureau, 1988a) are basically (50
per cent) to see new products, services, and
developments. In any particular show, 16 per
cent of the audience is interested in seeing a
specific product and 6 per cent actually are
planning to buy that product. A total of 57 per
cent expect to buy one or more of the prod-
ucts, and 79 per cent of attendees have a buy-
ing influence. The average attendee spends
two days at the exhibits, viewing them for a
total of eight hours. Of a typical show’s audi-
ence, 62 per cent do not attend any competi-
tive show in the same field (Association Man-
agement, 1979). Other categories include gen-
eral interest in subject area (15 per cent), to
see specific product or company (10 per cent),
to attend technical/educational sessions (8
per cent), and to obtain technical or product
information (7 per cent). A recent study by
Incomm International, in Chicago, called
Why Visitors Attend Exhibits, gives these
reasons:
• to find solutions to known problems;
• to decide on or finalize vendor selection for
post-show purchases;
• to identify new methods, to meet with tech-
nical experts; and
• to assess technical directions (Mee, 1988).
A paralyzing conflict of interest can occur
between attendees and exhibitors. Many
attending firms use shows not to buy but to
gather detailed procurement information on
alternative technologies, product specifica-
tions, budgets, vendors and other prepur-
chase items (Bello, 1992). Contrast this to the
primary objectives (50 per cent) behind
exhibit participation which are short-term
selling and relationship-enhancing activities
followed by developing a new product/mar-
ket. Thus, attendees are often not effectively
served by exhibitors seeking on-site sales or
gathering leads for territory salespersons.
In another study (Faria and Dickinson,
1986) of exhibitors’ characteristics, the impor-
tance of trade shows to their overall market-
ing programs, and how many shows they
attend each year were reviewed. Attendees
were primarily manufacturers of industrial
products (70 per cent) with industrial users
(49 per cent) or intermediaries (25 per cent) as
their principal customers. Smaller and larger
companies were the more avid users than
medium-size companies ($25 million to $99
million). Larger companies (over $100 mil-
lion) were most likely to rate trade shows as
very important.Those companies with many
products (two to nine) but not too many (over
25) were those most likely to exhibit.
More than 90 per cent of the responding
companies indicated that trade shows were
very important or relatively important ele-
ments in their marketing programs. More
than 50 per cent attended five or more trade
shows a year with nearly one-tenth attending
25 or more shows yearly. The larger the com-
pany, the higher, on average, the number of
trade shows exhibited annually. The greater
the number of products in a company’s prod-
uct line, the more trade shows it tends to
exhibit at. A direct relationship appears to
exist between market share and trade show
participation: firms with greater than 20 per
cent market share average nearly twice as
many shows per year (ten) than those with
less than 5 per cent market share (five-six).
An empirical study examined trade show
performance along two dimensions: selling
and non-selling (Kerin and Cron, 1987). Fac-
tors affecting performance included the
number of prospective buyers in a firm’s
target market, the number of current and
new competitors, the number of products a
firm exhibits (the greater the number the
better), the show selection (horizontal versus
vertical), sales volume was found to be not
related, and higher effectiveness if a firm has
written objectives than no objectives.
Methodology
Data for this study was collected by a mail
survey of US businesses. A cover letter with
university letterhead was utilized to provide
legitimacy. Cooperation of a large media cor-
poration with high level of trade show partici-
pation was obtained; the media company
provided the authors with 2,500 labels con-
taining names selected at random from their
database of domestic trade show users/inter-
ested parties. These were drawn from a ran-
dom national sample of names from two SICs.
After expunging duplicates and multiple
listings from the same company, 2,000 surveys
were sent. As the company desired to be
anonymous, no sponsorship was mentioned.
Surveys were individually addressed but the
cover letter was not personalized.
The seven- page comprehensive survey
comprised four parts: general trade show
items, questions aimed at international
usage, questions for non-exhibitors and a set
of questions concerning organizational demo-
graphics. The whole questionnaire
[ 427 ]
 Paul Herbig, Bradley O’Hara
and Frederick A. Palumbo
Trade show: who, what, why
Marketing Intelligence &
Planning
16/7 [1998] 425–435
Downloaded by LULEA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 15:40 30 January 2016 (PT)
comprised 85 questions and was quite exten-
sive. The four parts of the survey consisted of
domestic trade show questions (users with no
trade show activity within the last two years
was asked to fill-out Part 3 on non-usage),
international trade show items, Part 3 on
non-users, and organizational characteris-
tics.
The final tally was 204 useable responses
(out of 240 received) for a response rate
slightly over 10 per cent. As the survey was
an eight-page vehicle with the cover letter
being the first page and organizational char-
acteristics being the last, considerable time
was involved. This, no doubt, was responsible
From the responses of the respondents, the
responses were marked either “Not-exhibit-
ing” for those who had not exhibited during
1991-1992 and had no plans to do so in 1993 –
these filled out the non-exhibitor section and
the organizational demographics – a second
group termed “Domestic”, who only exhib-
ited at domestic shows during the same time-
frame and did not plan to do any interna-
tional exhibiting during 1993 – these filled out
the general section as well as the organiza-
tional demographics section, and the “Inter-
national” exhibitors who had exhibited inter-
nationally during 1991-1992 or plan to do so
during 1993. This paper only reports and

for the low response rate. However, the actual analyzes the information received from those
number of responses received made for exhibiting at trade shows, the second and
usable analysis. Since this number was third groups; non-exhibitor responses were
deemed adequate, no follow-up mailing was excluded. Table I indicates the number of
made. Organizational respondent profiles can respondents in each group. Respondents were
be viewed in Table I. primarily manufacturers, industrial-oriented
firms, with a domestic/North American bias.
Although 204 respondents were received, 42
Table I were non-exhibitors. Since this study was
Organizational demographics of respondents concerned with reporting and evaluating
Number % trade show criteria, the maximum number of
relevant respondents would be 162. All per
a. Trade show usage centages and results were derived from this
Not exhibiting 42 20 sample, not the entire set of respondents.
Domestic only 85 42
International exhibitions 77 37
204 Results
b. Type of business Objectives
Manufacturing 157 The need to set objectives is important
Services 46 (Cavanaugh, 1976). Objectives for attending a
c. Customer type trade show are many and may include: com-
Industrial 115 pany’s purpose;what message will be sent;
Consumer 71 prime prospect or target audience to be
d. Area of operation reached; advantages to national, regional, or
Domestic USA 125 local; efficiency/effectiveness balance;budget
Worldwide 68 and projecting cost ratio per sales lead
e. Size of entity obtained; competition; marketing communi-
Small (under $10m) 72 cations budget. In a trade show bureau sur-
Medium ($10-250m) 56 vey, objectives given for entering a trade show
Large (over $250m) 55 included: new product introduction and eval-
f. Years in business uation (60 per cent), leads/new contacts (83
New (1-10) 38 per cent), sales goals/orders, sales training,
Young (11-20) 49 new reps or intermediaries, and image build-
Mid (21-50) 72 ing. Although 60 per cent of companies have
Mature (75) 44 defined exhibit guidelines, only 36 per cent
g. Affiliation say they set formal objectives (Donath, 1980).
US-Public 63 Another estimate is that only 56 per cent of
US-Private 109 exhibiting firms bother to set objectives and
Foreign 31 only 22 per cent have preshow promotions
h. No. of product lines (Mee, 1988a; 1988b).
Few (1-5) 74 Table II indicates the totals for firms setting
Some (5-10) 62 objectives. Table III indicates targets. As only
Many (710) 67 162 exhibiting firms responded, clearly many
i. No. of customers displayed multiple objectives. Finding prime
Few (1-99) 41 prospects, meeting target audience, and seek-
Lots (100-500) 60 ing new leads/contacts (all sales directed)
Many (7,500) 112 dominated. The second tier of important
[ 428 ]
 Paul Herbig, Bradley O’Hara
and Frederick A. Palumbo
Trade show: who, what, why
Marketing Intelligence &
Planning
16/7 [1998] 425–435
Downloaded by LULEA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 15:40 30 January 2016 (PT)
objectives included competitive information,
new product introduction, and image build-
ing. These numbers confirm Cavanaugh’s
findings, although the number setting objec-
tives appear to far exceed the 36 per cent
found by Donath and even the 56 per cent of
Mee. An examination of Table III, targets set,
confirm the selling preoccupation of the trade
show agenda with new leads and new product
introduction dominating.
Effectiveness
Faria and Dickinson (1985) (12,820 companies
and 41 trade shows) rated 34 trade show selec-
tion criteria on a nine-point scale. The results
in the show selection include: booth posi-
tion/location on floor, ability to specify/nego-
tiate booth size and location, aisle traffic
density, easy registration/preregistration,
security, easily available moving in/moving
out assistance, and move in/move out facili-
ties. Among the least factors are show ameni-
ties such as exhibitors’ lounge, eating facili-
ties, visitor parking, show scheduling, and
timing factors.One author postulates that
selling effectiveness tends to be low at most
trade shows because salespeople, trained and
experienced in field selling, find it difficult to
adapt to chaotic show environment
(Konopacki, 1989).

indicated the firms that exhibited were con- Another measure is exhibit efficiency: the
cerned primarily with audience quality, audi- per centage potential audience that receives
ence quantity, display location, logistical person-to-person contact at the company’s
aspects in that order (Faria and Dickinson, exhibit. As an overall measure of an exhibit’s
1985). Five of the 15 attributes relate to the performance this factor was 64 per cent (1987)
quality of the trade show audience: propor- – versus 62 per cent in 1990. This rate has
tion of decision makers in the audience, pro- been relatively constant in the almost 30
portion of visitors in the company’s target years it has been calculated – around 60 per
market, limitations the show imposed on type cent. Other measures include:
of exhibitors, new contacts made last year, • Personnel performance. The quality and
and the screening of show visitors. Audience number of exhibit personnel on duty at the
quality factors include total visitors to the booth.
booth during the last year, total show atten- • Product interest. The per centage of booth
dance in previous years, and extent of promo- visitors who said they were interested in
tion by the show organizers. Also important seeing the company’s type of products/ser-
vices.
• Buying influence. The percentage of an
Table II average exhibit’s visitors who claimed a
Trade show objectives buying influence for its products/services.
• Buying plans. The percentage of an
Number of times Rated Rated No. in
exhibit’s visitors who said they were
checked no. 1 no. 2 top 3
planning to buy the company’s products/
57 Fulfilling company’s mission 9 3 20 services as a result of what they saw at the
123 Finding prime prospects 27 41 97 show.
124 Meeting target audience 14 33 73 • Memorability. The percentage of visitors
104 Obtaining competitive information 1 38 55 who stopped at an exhibit and remember
108 New product introduction/evaluation 12 26 62 doing so eight to ten weeks after the show
137 Garnering leads/new contact 60 36 110 was 74 per cent (1987) versus 71 per cent in
39 Receiving sales orders 8 6 16 1989.
24 Sales training 1 20
27 Recruiting new reps/intermediaries 1 2 6 Those visitors who do not remember an
118 Image building 18 2 50 exhibit indicate it must not have had much of
an impact on them. The average during the
last 20 years has remained steady at around
Table III 70 per cent. Low memorability can be caused
Trade show targets by poor personnel performance, insufficient
corporate identification, low awareness of a
Number of times Rated Rated No. in
company in an industry, failing to follow-up
checked no. 1 no. 2 top 3
inquiries or an overreaction to the exhibit by
131 Number of new leads 74 44 129 people who are not interested in the products
61 Come in at or under budget 4 10 38 displayed.
46 Number of new orders 13 17 35 Cost measures of effectiveness include:
26 Number of new intermediaries 1 7 16 CVR (cost per visitor reached) achieved
84 Part of marketing mix 10 25 62 nearly $90 in 1989, up from $86-$87 in 1986.
26 Meeting cost ratio per sale lead obtained 4 7 18 This has been steadily increasing over the
22 Training new staff 0 4 11 years, as would be expected, from $48 in 1976
107 New product/service introduction 35 27 88 to $58 in 1979; and top performing exhibit: an
[ 429 ]
 Paul Herbig, Bradley O’Hara
and Frederick A. Palumbo
Trade show: who, what, why
Marketing Intelligence &
Planning
16/7 [1998] 425–435
Downloaded by LULEA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 15:40 30 January 2016 (PT)
exhibit that reaches at least 70 per cent of its
potential audience at a CVR of less than the
show average. This is an exhibit that reaches
its prospects more effectively, and spends less
per visitor reached. Top performers usually
average less than half CVR of the average.
Other measures of effectiveness generally
used by companies exhibiting in trade shows
include (Trade Show Bureau survey):
• number of leads generated (71 per cent);
• quantity of actual sales from these leads (46
per cent);
• cost per lead generated (13 per cent);
• feedback about the show given to salesforce
(32 per cent); and
with cost per lead, cost per visitor, and meet-
ing budget combined being checked by less
than one-quarter of exhibiting respondents
(and only one rated any of these three as
being first). Non-sales measures also fared
poorly as rated by the respondents.
Why firms exhibit
The functions of a trade show go well beyond
merely selling role into non-selling functions.
Both selling and non-selling (Kerin and Cron,
1987) were shown to have distinct factor load-
ings. Functions include:
• identifying prospects (lead production – 86
per cent of firms indicate primary reason);

• the amount of literature distributed at the • servicing current customers;

show.
In an empirical study, the measures to evalu-
ate effectiveness of an exhibit (Bellizzi and
Lipps, 1984) validated Swandby and Cox’s
(1980) factors.
Table IV shows the compilation of effective-
ness index from our study. The five dominant
effectiveness measures as reported by the
respondents included: leads generated (with
52 firsts), number of sales resulting (28 firsts),
product interest (21 firsts), how many visitors
came to booth, and buying plans. All these are
sales-related effectiveness measures. These
measures tend to confirm the studies noted
above. Note, though, that cost-related effec-
tiveness measures were virtually ignored
• introducing new or modified products;
• enhancing corporate image – competitors,
customers, industry and press;
• testing new products;
• improving/maintaining corporate morale;
• gathering competitor information;
• selling at show itself;
• gaining access to key decision makers;
• disseminating facts about products, ser-
vices;
• servicing current account problems.
Table V shows the compilation of the reasons
behind exhibiting by the survey respondents.
The two major reasons given were identify
prospects (with 69 firsts) and new product
introduction (with 18 firsts). The selling

Table IV
Measuring trade show effectiveness?
Number checked No. rated 1
59 Percentage of audience planning to buy as result of show 15
114 Product interest: the percentage of booth visitors who said they
were interested in seeing the company’s type of products/services 21
77 Buying influence: the percentage of an average exhibit’s visitors
who claimed a buying influence for its products/services 2
82 Buying plans: the percentage of an exhibit’s visitors who said they were
planning to buy from the company as a result of what they saw at the show 18
26 Memorability: how many remembered after 8 weeks –
61 The percentage of the potential audience which attended the trade show which
received person-to-person contact at the company’s exhibit 4
131 The number of leads generated 52
98 The quantity of actual sales from these leads 28
47 The cost per lead generated –
60 The feedback about the show given to sales force –
24 The amount of literature distributed at the show 1
90 How well exhibit attracted prospects (how many visitors came) –
6 Cost per visitor 1
60 Number of exhibitors at show –
37 Meeting budget –
48 Size of booth –
84 Location of booth –
33 Length of show (in days) –
17 Average number of hours spent at show by average participant –
9 Average number of exhibits visited by the average participant

[ 430 ]
 Paul Herbig, Bradley O’Hara
and Frederick A. Palumbo
Trade show: who, what, why
Marketing Intelligence &
Planning
16/7 [1998] 425–435
non-selling dichotomy of Kerin and Cox were
confirmed with this survey. Interestingly,
although the objectives and effectiveness
measures were predominantly selling based,
two non-selling criteria received unusually
high marks as reasons for exhibiting: Image
and competition (both competitive informa-
tion and following competition).
free tickets also were the method of choice for
over half the exhibitor respondents. Mass
media (radio, television, outdoor advertising)
was almost non-existent as was specialty
advertising. It does appear that complemen-
tary activities were being performed by
exhibitors but with direct mail and special
advertisements as the preferred means.

Pre-show activities Show activities

In another Trade Show Bureau survey, 83 per
cent of all companies did some pre-show pro-
motion with the most favorite tactic being
personal invitation to key accounts (60 per
cent) followed by drop-line in regular adver-
Downloaded by LULEA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 15:40 30 January 2016 (PT)
Table VII shows compilation of show activi-
ties reported by the respondents.
By moving outside the booth, such as host-
ing social events such as hospitality suites
and banquets, after-hours appointments, the

tisements (32 per cent) and stuffer or direct salesperson can better accommodate both the
mail (26 per cent) (Donath, 1980). By comple- task and social dimension of selling. Show
menting exhibiting at a show by advertising, selling is enhanced by targeted promotion
promotion and publicity, a company can before (pre-selling through the trade media)
assure those attending will want to stop and and during a trade show (Bello and Lohtia,
talk at its booth. This is especially true at 1993). The range of alternatives were limited
larger shows; the critical point is usually a as were the responses. Dinner with special
show with 200 exhibitors or more, when the customers (76 firsts), hospitality suite (16
exhibiting company is making an intensive firsts), and co-located conference or seminar
effort to attract its share of visitors (Greif, (15 firsts) were the overwhelming choices.
1979). Pre-show promotion is probably more This narrow view could indicate that oppor-
important for the smaller exhibitors than for tunities exist for firms to attempt more cre-
larger exhibitors (Williams et al., 1993). ative, more visible, and more stimulating
Table VI shows compilation of pre-show show activities that would set the firm apart
activities reported by the respondents. from its rivals and leave a long-term trace in
Invitations dominated the pre-show activi- the buyer’s mind rather than attempting to
ties but personally addressed mailed invita- stand-out from one’s rivals by doing the same
tions (46 firsts) were the vehicle of choice over thing as they do.
personally delivered invitations. Advertise-
ments in special show issues (28 firsts) and Post-show activities
Table VIII shows compilation of post-show
activities reported by the respondents.
Table V
Direct mail/literature mailing and direct
Reasons a firm exhibits
sales contact dominate. It is worth comment-
No. of times checked Rated no. 1 ing that telemarketing/inside sales contact
125 Identifying prospects 69 were minimal. This could indicate that either
94 Servicing current customers 10 the technique is not well-known and hence
133 Introducing new or modified products 18 little experience has been gained or it has not
117 Enhancing corporate image, goodwill 4 proven to be as efficient as it could have been
45 Testing new products/services – and a firm’s usage of the technique has been
29 Improving/maintaining corporate morale – minimized. The authors are inclined to
106 Gathering competitor information – believe in the former proposition: it has not
68 Selling at show itself 9 been as widely tried as it could or should be.
99 Gaining access to key decision makers 14 This definitely appears to be one place where
101 Disseminating facts about products, services 3 improvement can take place.
55 Identify suppliers –
112 Because competition is there –
48 Industry update – Management implications
67 Free company publicity is gained – Industrial trade shows are widely used and
35 Physical display of non-portable products – are viewed as extremely effective by most
44 Determine potential customer requirements – business-to-business entities. In terms of the
56 Determine new applications for existing products – marketing mix, only direct on-site selling
61 Recruit new sales personnel 1 receives more funds. Over the last five years,
78 Maintain seniority in selecting space – growth of trade shows and trade show expen-
38 Support sponsoring association 1 ditures have greatly risen. During that same
72 Recruit dealers or distributors 1 time, the per centage of the marketing mix
[ 431 ]
 Paul Herbig, Bradley O’Hara
and Frederick A. Palumbo
Trade show: who, what, why
Marketing Intelligence &
Planning
16/7 [1998] 425–435
Downloaded by LULEA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 15:40 30 January 2016 (PT)
allocated to trade shows have, for most orga-
nizational entities, either remain constant or
have increased slightly. Numerous advan-
tages exist for exhibiting at trade shows,
including audience quality, exhibiting non-
portable products, and the cost per contact
approximately one-third of that of a direct
sales call. Nonetheless, many disadvantages
to using trade shows exist. Costs have esca-
lated to an average of $80,000 per trade show
with the million dollar booth no longer a
rarity. The vagueness at quantifying results
from trade shows makes many executives
(especially controllers) queasy about the
large expenditures. Nevertheless, trade
Are trade shows for everyone? Not necessar-
ily. As noted in ours and other studies,
exhibiting firms show distinct significant
characteristics from non-exhibitors. Large
international-oriented industrial companies
with many customers, technically complex
goods, a high degree of customization, and
relatively expensive goods are those firms
most prone to exhibit. Note that this indicates
who exhibits and does not present a picture of
who “ought” to exhibit or which firms are
more effective at exhibiting. Each firm must
evaluate trade shows on their own criteria
based on their own special unique circum-
stances. In the early 1980s, Apple Computer

shows continue to grow, even in the recession decided not to exhibit at Comdex because
of 1991-1992. they felt the show was becoming too broad
based and did not provide an audience most
receptive to its own products. Likewise, each
Table VI firm must make its own decision to exhibit or
Pre-show promotions used not, which shows, and how many shows.
We can provide numerous tips on increas-
Number No. rated No. rated Total ing the effectiveness of trade shows. First and
checked 1 2 top 3 foremost, before any trade shows are selected
75 Personally delivered invitations 10 21 49 or a trade show strategy prepared, clear and
75 Drop-line in regular ads 11 12 43 succinct objectives must be determined. Pre-
74 Stuffer or sticker in mail 16 13 40 vious studies have indicated only one-third to
129 Personal invitations by mail 46 33 100 one-half of all companies have clear written
52 Special ads at show 5 10 29 trade show objectives. Too many are just as
38 Dramatic mail to key prospects 7 8 24 inefficient as none. The company must con-
23 Promise of special gift to those who stop by 3 1 13 centrate on a limited number – two to five –
7 Radio or TV message in convention city – 1 1 and prioritize. Both selling and non-selling
8 Outdoor advertising in convention city – – – functions of trade shows exist, and both
1 Local newspaper in convention city – 1 1 should be screened for being appropriate
85 Ads in special show editions of industry journals 28 14 57 objectives.
89 VIP (free ) show tickets 19 26 59 After the objectives have been written down
and the strategy solidified, the next course of
business is to attempt to determine the effec-
Table VII tiveness of the company’s strategy.
Show activities a firm uses Measuring trade show effectiveness can be
an effective exercise, if the proper tracking
Number of times No. 1 Total
mechanisms are established and manage-
checked rated top 3
ment make a commitment to monitor perfor-
53 Cocktail party 6 41 mance. Various effectiveness measures can
126 Dinner with special customers 76 113 be generated, focusing on the audience and
58 Hospitality suite 16 48 on the activities of the exhibitor. The develop-
21 Golf outings (or other ment and tracking of measures can go a long
sporting events) 1 8 way in fighting the battle that occurs in some
29 Suite for private viewing of firms between trade show believers and trade
new products 5 21 show skeptics. Although addressing the ques-
49 Conference or seminar program tion of trade show effectiveness is a necessary
co-located 15 38 one, perhaps a more challenging exercise to
trade show exhibitors is how to improve
Table VIII effectiveness. Obviously, once effectiveness
Post-show activities measures are in place, the impact of pre-event
Number of times advertisements, in-show promotional items,
checked No. rated 1 additional booth personnel, larger booth
space, etc., can be determined with the objec-
115 Follow-up direct mail 57 tive of getting a better return for the trade-
141 Literature mailed if requested 59 show dollar.
137 Sales person directly follow-up 35 Sales leads generated from the show,
79 Inside salesperson follow-up 23 although recognized as one of the best
[ 432 ]
 Paul Herbig, Bradley O’Hara
and Frederick A. Palumbo
Trade show: who, what, why
Marketing Intelligence &
Planning
16/7 [1998] 425–435
Downloaded by LULEA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 15:40 30 January 2016 (PT)
measures available to most industrial show
participants, can be misleading if other fac-
tors such as booth staffing and time spent
with prospects are not taken into considera-
tion. The number of sales that result from the
leads can be another practical measure of a
trade show’s value. In this respect, cost per
show inquiry becomes an especially impor-
tant measure of new product introductions.
Qualitative, post-show sales force feedback
should also be included in the evaluation
process. What did personnel think of the
booth location and traffic flow? Did they meet
the right level of prospect? Were they pro-
vided with the proper marketing tools?
Our study and other studies clearly indicate
an area of improvement that many companies
are neglecting: pre-, during- and post-show
promotional efforts. Exhibitors can do much
to attract more and better candidates – they
should not rely on the organizer to do their
promotion. Company clients and prospects
should be informed through direct mail
pieces or trade advertisements concerning
participation well in advance of a trade show
event. Additionally, invitations and even
prepaid tickets might be extended to select
customers and/or prospects to attend com-
pany-sponsored events during the trade fair.
A variety of pre-show promotions designed to
create interest and bring the audience (exist-
ing and potential customers) to the company
booth, during show promotions to solidify
bonds between company and customer and to
provide quality contact time, and post-show
follow-ups are necessary.
The number of leads in itself is an inade-
quate measure if post-show follow-up is defi-
cient. Having a well-planned post-show lead
measurement and response system is manda-
tory. The most typical is mail-call-mail with
the company mailing the desired brochures
requested from the show, calling within a
short period of time to follow-up on the
attendee having received the piece and
his/her preferences, and then following up
with additional mail or a sales call depending
on the response. A computerized lead man-
agement system where the company can
download the day’s leads and have the desired
information in the mail that night (so as to be
on the attendee’s desk when he/she gets back
to the office) should pay for itself within a
year.
The salesforce, that is the booth personnel,
must be carefully examined for maximum
effective operations. Unique trade show char-
acteristics, in concert with inexperienced
booth personnel, may mean that individuals
are missing the quality individuals that are
in attendance at the show. As one study indi-
cates, the chaotic trade show environment
may actually inhibit the performance and
capabilities of many of a company’s top field
salespersons. The most successful salespeo-
ple at one trade show were of the missionary
seller or trade seller type. These people typi-
cally do not engage in selling and post-sale
service; their activities are oriented towards
establishing a good image about the company
and its products, supplying information to
interested individuals, qualifying leads, and
obtaining industry information. Careful
selection of the booth personnel and proper
training for trade show exhibitors can make a
profound difference on trade show results
and effectiveness. Measuring trade show
results for these personnel should reflect an
orientation towards prospecting, gathering
competitive and customer information, and
disseminating information.
Our study indicates few companies engage
regularly and extensively in international
trade shows, although most see the need for
either extending their efforts or pursuing
efforts overseas. International trade fairs and
trade centers are important vehicles to be
considered as part of the industrial market-
ing plan. Although experience suggests that
these events are viewed as promotional activ-
ities, the trade show can be invaluable in
establishing trade relations in new countries.
This is supported by evidence which shows
that some international companies generate
as much as 70 per cent of their annual sales at
international trade fairs. For minimal costs,
the trade show can provide the foundation to
many fruitful business relationships abroad.
It is estimated that an American business
person get his/her “foot-in-the-door” with a
modest $2,500 investment for travel, a week’s
accommodation, entrance fees and inciden-
tals. These costs seem trivial, in light of the
valuable cultural, economic, and business/
regulatory insights to be gained.
References and further reading
Association Management (1979), “New study
reveals a profile of people who attend trade
shows”, Association Management, April,
pp. 77-82.
Banting, P.M. and Blankhorn, D.L. (1974), “The
role of industrial trade shows”, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 3, October,
pp. 285-95.
Barczyk, C.C., Glisan, G.B. and Lesch, W.C. (1989),
“Trade show participation: inter-industry and
organizational motives”, Journal of Profes-
sional Services Marketing, Vol. 4 No. 1,
pp. 131-46.
Bellizzi, J.A. and Lipps, D.J. (1984), “Managerial
guidelines for trade show effectiveness”,
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 13,
February, pp. 49-52.
[ 433 ]
 Paul Herbig, Bradley O’Hara
and Frederick A. Palumbo
Trade show: who, what, why
Marketing Intelligence &
Planning
16/7 [1998] 425–435
Downloaded by LULEA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 15:40 30 January 2016 (PT)
[ 434 ]
Bello, D.C. (1992), “Industrial buyer behavior at
trade shows: implications for selling effective-
ness”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 25
No. 1, August, pp. 59-80.
Bello, D.C. and Barczak, G.J. (1990), “Using indus-
trial trade shows to improve new product
development”, The Journal of Business and
Industrial Marketing, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 43-56.
Bello, D.C. and Barksdale, H.C. Jr (1986), “Export-
ing at industrial trade shows”, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 15, pp. 197-206.
Bello, D.C. and Lohtia, R. (1993), “Improving trade
show effectiveness by analyzing attendees”,
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 22,
pp. 311-18.
Bertrand, K. (1987), “Talking turkey on trade
shows”, Business Marketing, Vol. 72, March,
pp. 94-103.
Black, R. (1986), The Trade Show Industry: Man-
agement and Marketing Career Opportunities,
Trade Show Bureau, East Orleans, MA.
Bonoma, T.V. (1983), “Get more out of your trade
shows”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 61,
January-February, pp. 75-83.
Browning, J.M. and Adams, R.J. (1988), “Trade
shows: an effective promotional tool for the
small industrial business”, Journal of Small
Business Management, Vol. 26 No. 4, October,
pp. 31-6.
Business Marketing (1988), “Facing up to winning
exhibit design”, Business Marketing, March,
p. 82.
Carman, J.M. (1968), Evaluation of Trade Show
Exhibitions, Vol. XI, No. 2, Winter, pp. 35-44.
Cavanaugh, S. (1976), “Setting objectives and
evaluating the effectiveness of trade show
exhibits”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40, Octo-
ber, pp. 100-3.
Chonko, L.B. (1990), “Relationship selling at trade
shows”, Review of Business, Vol. 12 No. 1,
Summer, pp. 13-16.
Couretas, J. (1984), “Trade shows and the strategic
mainstream”, Business Marketing, Vol. 69,
pp. 64-70.
Cox, J.M., Sequeira, I.K. and Bock, L.L. (1988),
“1987 trade show trends: show size grows,
audience quality stays high”, Business Mar-
keting, May, pp. 84-8.
Donath, B. (1980), “Show and sell by the num-
bers”, Industrial Marketing, March, pp. 70-5.
Faria, A.J. and Dickinson, J.R. (1985), “Behind the
push to exhibit at trade shows”, Business
Marketing, August, pp. 98-102.
Faria, A.J. and Dickinson, J.R. (1986), “What kinds
of companies use trade shows most – and
why?”, Business Marketing, Vol. 71 No. 6, June,
pp. 150-3; 155.
Golob, S. (1988), “Sell overseas at trade fairs”,
Nation’s Business, March, pp. 57-60.
Gopalakrishna, S. and Williams, J.D. (1991), Trade
offs in Trade Shows: An Approach for Plan-
ning and Performance Assessment, Institute
for the Study of Business Market, working
paper 3.
Greif, E. (1979), “On site support: cost effective
trade show traffic builder”, Industrial Market-
ing, April, pp. 78-85.
Herbig, P.A., O’Hara, B.S. and Palumbo, F. (1993),
“Measuring trade show effectiveness: an
effective exercise”, Journal of Promotion
Management, Vol. 2 No. 1.
Herbig, P.A., O’Hara, B.S. and Palumbo, F. (1993),
“Trade show effectiveness”, Journal of Inter-
national Marketing.
Honnor, R. (1988), “Read the small print first”,
Industrial Marketing Digest, Vol. 13 No. 4,
pp. 91-107.
Humbert, R.P. (1987), “Trade fairs are an excellent
way to take advantage of the growing opportu-
nities in Western Europe”, Business America,
21 December, pp. 3-5.
Industrial Marketing (n.d.), “Trade shows are
usually a form of mass hysteria, Zaga says”,
Industrial Marketing, Vol. 64, p. 4.
Kane, W.F. (1988), “Trade fairs, shows: good tools
to build international markets”, Business
America, 17 July, pp. 5-8.
Kerin, R.A. and Cron, W.L. (1987), “Assessing trade
show functions and performance: an
exploratory study”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 51, July, pp. 87-94.
Kijewski, V., Yoon, E. and Young, G. (1993), “How
exhibitors select trade shows”, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 22, pp. 287-98.
Konopacki, A. (1982), “The different sell at trade
shows”, Industrial Marketing, pp. 71-2.
Konopacki, A. (1989), “Getting results from trade
shows”, Business Age Vol. 3, pp. 38-50.
Lazaro, C. (1989), “No business like roadshow
business”, Industrial Marketing Digest,
Vol. 14 No. 4 (fourth quarter), pp. 101-7.
Lilien, G.L. (1983), “A descriptive model of the
trade show budgeting decision process”,
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 12,
February, pp. 25-9.
Mascari, P.A. (1992), “Trade show trends”, Associ-
ation Management, Vol. 44 No. 14, April,
pp. 97-100.
Mee, W.W. (1988a), “Trade shows: this marketing
medium means business”, Association Man-
agement, Vol. 40, June, pp. 50-5.
Mee, W.W. (1988b), “Trade shows: here to stay – are
they in your future”, Association Manage-
ment, pp. 50-6.
Moriarty, R.T. Jr and Spekman, R.E. (1984), “An
empirical investigation of the information
sources used during the industrial buying
process”, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 21, May, pp. 137-47.
Murphy, R. (1990), “It’s show time”, Successful
Meetings, August, pp. 95-6.
O’Hara, B.S. (1991), “Evaluating the effectiveness
of trade shows: a personal selling perspec-
tive”, working paper, Southeastern Louisiana
University.
O’Hara, B.S. (1993), “Evaluating the effectiveness
of trade shows”, Journal of Personal Selling
and Sales Management.
 Paul Herbig, Bradley O’Hara
and Frederick A. Palumbo
Trade show: who, what, why
Marketing Intelligence &
Planning
16/7 [1998] 425–435
Downloaded by LULEA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 15:40 30 January 2016 (PT)
O’Hara, B.S. and Herbig, P. (n.d.), “Trade shows:
what do the exhibitors think?”, working paper.
O’Hara, B., Palumbo, F. and Herbig, P. (1993),
“Industrial trade shows abroad”, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 22.
Parasuraman, A. (1981), “The relative importance
of industrial promotion tools”, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 10, pp. 277-81.
Rizzo, A.M. (1982), “Export strategies for small
business”, Business America, 6 September,
pp. 2-6.
Rosson, P.J. and Seringhaus, F.H.R. (1989), Interna-
tional Trade Fairs: Firms and Government
Exhibits, Dalhousie University discussion
papers in International Business, No. 79,
March.
Sashi, C.M. and Perretty, J. (1992), “Do trade
shows provide value?”, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 21, pp. 249-55.
Skolnik, R. (1987), “Getting the brass to take trade
shows seriously”, Sales and Marketing Man-
agement, Vol. 139, October, pp. 99-102.
Swandby, R.K. and Cox, J.M. (1980), “How trade
shows served the ’70s”, Industrial Marketing,
April, pp. 72-8.
Swandby, R.K., Cox, J.M. and Sequeira, I.K (1990),
“Trade shows poised for 1990s growth”, Busi-
ness Marketing, May, pp. 46-52.
Trade Show Bureau (1986a), Exhibit Management
Practices – Setting Objectives and the Evalua-
tion of Results, Study No. 2010.
Trade Show Bureau (1986b), The Exhibit Manage-
ment Function – Perceptions of Exhibit Man-
agement and Marketing Executives, Study
No. 2040.
Trade Show Bureau (1988a), Attitudes and Opin-
ions of Computer Executives Regarding Atten-
dance at Information Technology Events,
Study No. 1080.
Trade Show Bureau (1988b), Exhibitors – Their
Trade Show Practices, Study No. 2050.
Weinrauch, D. J. (1984), “Role and utilization of
trade shows for international trade”, in Klein
and Smith (Eds), Marketing Comes of Age,
Southern Marketing Association.
Williams, J.D., Gopalakrishna, S. and Cox, J.M.
(1993), “Trade show guidelines for smaller
firms”, Industrial Marketing Management,
Vol. 22, pp. 265-75.
Witt, J. and Rao, C.P. (1989), “Trade shows as an
industrial promotion tool: a review and
research agenda”, Proceedings of the Thir-
teenth Annual Conference of the AMS, Vol. XII,
pp. 392-6.
Young, G.G. (1987), “Exhibit marketing”, Advances
in Business Marketing, Vol 2, pp. 165-217.
[ 435 ]
 This article has been cited by:

1. Udo Gottlieb, Mark Brown, Liz Ferrier. 2014. Consumer perceptions of trade show effectiveness. European Journal of
Marketing 48:1/2, 89-107. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. Wondwesen Tafesse, Tor Korneliussen. 2013. Examining the effect of using multiple media tools on the marketing
performance of organizations in a trade campaign environment. Journal of Marketing Communications 19, 215-227. [CrossRef]
3. Udo R. Gottlieb, Mark R. Brown, Judy Drennan. 2011. The influence of service quality and trade show effectiveness on post‐
show purchase intention. European Journal of Marketing 45:11/12, 1642-1659. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. 김김김, 김김김. 2011. A Study on Demand Forecasting for Industrial Exhibit Space in Korea. The e-Business Studies 12, 443-459.
[CrossRef]
5. Juhee Kang, Thomas Schrier. 2011. The Decision-Making Process of Tradeshow Exhibitors: The Effects of Social Value,
Company Size, and Prior Experience on Satisfaction and Behavioral Intentions. Journal of Convention & Event Tourism 12,
65-85. [CrossRef]
6. Wondwesen Tafesse, Tor Korneliussen. 2011. The dimensionality of trade show performance in an emerging market.
International Journal of Emerging Markets 6:1, 38-49. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
7. Ulku Yuksel, Ranjit Voola. 2010. Travel trade shows: exploratory study of exhibitors' perceptions. Journal of Business &
Industrial Marketing 25:4, 293-300. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by LULEA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 15:40 30 January 2016 (PT)

8. Marcela Ramírez-Pasillas. 2010. International trade fairs as amplifiers of permanent and temporary proximities in clusters.
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 22, 155-187. [CrossRef]
9. Olukunle Iyanda, Edward E. Marandu, Mbaki A. Chamme. 2005. Trade Fair or Sales Fair. Journal of African Business 6,
53-72. [CrossRef]