Customer Satisfaction at A Portuguese Trade Fair

CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
AT A PORTUGUESE TRADE FAIR

(2001-2002)
A Thesis
Presented to the Faculty of European University
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Arts in Business Communications and Public Relations
by
Manuel Jorge Nunes de Sousa
2002
Customer Satisfaction At A Portuguese Trade Fair | Manuel de Sousa
2
This work is dedicated to my wife and best friend, Lídia, my daughter Leonor and my son Henrique,
with love.
Manuel de Sousa
3
4
HYPOTHESIS STATEMENT
The fact that I have been working at Exponor for the last three years having, among
other things, led the company in creating a quality system, ultimately applying for the
certification against the ISO 9001 standards, gave me the chance to put in practice a
set of programs of customer satisfaction. One of the actions taken was to
homogenize the already existing customer surveys and to start conducting
scientifically conceived inquiries on a regular basis.
This work is an analysis of two customer satisfaction assessments of a particular trade

show – INTERDECORAÇÃO – organized by Exponor and devoted to the
decoration market. Customers at trade shows include both exhibitors and visitors.
The two assessments were made in two editions – 2001 and 2002 – of this same trade
fair.
The success of the questionnaires used in this survey, made it to be adopted by all the
rest of the fairs that are part of Exponor’s annual calendar of events.
The method used was the direct inquiry, using a written questionnaire sent by mail to
all exhibitors of the 2001 and the 2002 editions of the show, as well as a total selection
of 440 visitors. All responses were statistically analyzed and the data of the two
inquiries compared in order to drawn trends as well as correlations between the
several responses.
The main objectives of this work are to study the reaction of customers to the set of
questions made in the two years, identify trends, draw a picture of the driving factors
for satisfaction and dissatisfaction of exhibitors and visitors, as well as the real
motivations that led them to come to the trade show. It is also intended to identify
strong points and areas for improvement and, finally, address some recommendations
to the show organizer on what to do in order to maximize customer satisfaction.
5
6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
HYPOTHESIS STATEMENT......................................................................................................5
LIST OF FIGURES ..........................................................................................................................9
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 13
TRADE FAIRS AROUND THE WORLD ............................................................................ 15
2.1 Background ........................................................................................................................... 15
2.2 European and American Trade Fairs............................................................................... 17
2.3 Categories of Exhibitions................................................................................................... 19
2.3.1 Trade and Industrial Fairs ........................................................................................19
2.3.2 Consumer and Public Exhibitions .........................................................................20
2.3.3 Other Exhibition Attractions ..................................................................................20
TRADE FAIRS IN PORTUGAL .............................................................................................. 21
3.1 Historical perspective.......................................................................................................... 21
3.2 Trade Fair Organizers ......................................................................................................... 27
3.2.1 The Braga Exhibition Center – PEB.....................................................................29
3.2.2 International Fair of Lisbon – FIL.........................................................................31
3.2.3 Exponor – Porto International Fair.......................................................................31
THE DECORATION MARKET IN PORTUGAL............................................................. 35
4.1 Ceramics................................................................................................................................. 35
4.2 Glass ....................................................................................................................................... 37
INTERDECORAÇÃO TRADE FAIR .................................................................................... 41
5.1 Background ........................................................................................................................... 41
5.2 The First Semester Decoration Fair................................................................................. 42
RESEARCH DESIGN.................................................................................................................. 43
6.1 Structure Of The Sample ................................................................................................... 43
6.2 Methodologies And Structure Of The Questionnaires................................................ 44
DATA ANALYSIS......................................................................................................................... 47
7.1. Customer Satisfaction Assessment Analysis – Exhibitors ......................................... 47
7.1.1 Exhibitors’ Profile......................................................................................................47
7.1.1.1 Share capital 48
7.1.1.2 Sales Volume 48
7.1.1.3 Number Of Employees 49
7.1.1.4 Participation 50
7.1.1.5 Sector 50
7.1.2 Contact with Exponor ..............................................................................................51
7.1.3 Assembly......................................................................................................................54
7.1.4 Dismantle.....................................................................................................................57
7.1.5 The Exhibition ...........................................................................................................60
7
7.1.6 The Exhibition - Organization................................................................................64

7.1.7 Overall Evaluation.....................................................................................................68
7.1.8 Objectives for Participation.....................................................................................70
7.1.9 Deciding Factor For Participation..........................................................................71
7.1.10 Exhibition Advertising ...........................................................................................71
7.2.1 Characterization Of The Visitor .............................................................................73
7.2.1.1 Participation 73
7.2.1.2 Type Of Visitor 73
7.2.2 Contact with Exponor ..............................................................................................74
7.2.3 The Exhibition ...........................................................................................................75
7.2.4 The Exhibition - Organization................................................................................78
7.2.5 Overall Evaluation.....................................................................................................80
7.2.6 Objectives Of The Visit............................................................................................82
7.2.7 Purchase Volume .......................................................................................................83
7.2.8 Deciding Factor For Participation..........................................................................83
7.1.10 Exhibition Advertising ...........................................................................................84
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................... 87
8.1 Exhibitor Satisfaction.......................................................................................................... 87
8.1.1 Comparison Of The Global Averages ..................................................................87
8.1.2 Highlights And Areas For Improvement .............................................................88
8.1.3 Analysis of correlations.............................................................................................91
8.2 Visitor Satisfaction............................................................................................................... 94
8.2.1 Comparison Of The Global Averages ..................................................................94
8.2.2 Highlights And Areas For Improvements............................................................95
8.2.3 Analysis of correlations.............................................................................................98
8.3 Global Appreciation And Recommendations ............................................................. 100
APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................... 105
Appendix A - The original questionnaire sent to the exhibitors 107
Appendix B - The original questionnaire sent to the visitors 111
GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................................... 115
BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................................ 123
8
LIST OF FIGURES
Number Page
Figure 1 – Evolution of rented area in square meters between 1995 and 2001. ..........................29
Figure 2 – Evolution of the number of exhibitors between 1995 and 2001.................................30
Figure 3 - Evolution of the number of trade visitors between 1995 and 2001 ............................32
Figure 4 - SWOT analysis of the Porcelain, Pottery, Stoneware and Earthenware
manufacturing sector.................................................................................................................36
Figure 5 - SWOT Analysis of the Glass Manufacturing Sector .......................................................38
Figure 6 - Distribution of the exhibitors in accordance with the share capital.............................48
Figure 7 - Distribution of the exhibitors in accordance to the sales volume ................................49
Figure 8 - Distribution of the exhibitors in accordance with the number of employees ...........49
Figure 9 - Division habitual/new exhibitors........................................................................................50
Figure 10 - Average scores for the questions regarding section Contact with Exponor..................52
Figure 11 - Average scores for the questions regarding section Assembly ......................................55
Figure 12 - Average scores for the questions regarding section Dismantle.....................................57
Figure 13 - Average scores for the questions regarding section The Exhibition ............................61
Figure 14 - Average scores for the questions regarding section The Exhibition - Organization....65
Figure 15 - Average scores of the questions regarding section Overall Evaluation ........................68
Figure 16 - Average scores of the questions regarding section Objectives for Participation (score
converted to the 1-to-5 scale)..................................................................................................70
Figure 17 - Average scores of the questions regarding section Deciding Factor For Participation
(score converted to the 1-to-5 scale)......................................................................................71
Figure 18 – Average percentages of the questions regarding section Exhibition Advertising.......72
Figure 19 - Division habitual visitors / new visitors ..........................................................................73
Figure 20 – Average score for the questions regarding section Contact with Exponor...................74
Figure 21 – Average scores for the questions regarding section The Exhibition ...........................76
Figure 22 - Average scores for the question regarding section The Exhibition - Organization......79
Figure 23 – Average scores for the questions regarding section Overall Evaluation......................81
Figure 24 – Average scores for the questions regarding section Objectives of the Visit (score
converted to the 1-to-5 scale)..................................................................................................82
Figure 25 - Volume of purchases during the exhibition....................................................................83
Figure 26 – Average scores for the questions regarding section Deciding Factors for Participation
(score converted to the 1-to-5 scale)......................................................................................83
Figure 27 – Average percentages for the questions regarding section Exhibition Advertising......84
Figure 28 - Exhibitors: comparison of global averages of each section in 2001 and 2002 ........87
Figure 29 – Exhibitors: highlights in 2001 ...........................................................................................88
Figure 30 – Exhibitors: highlights in 2002 ...........................................................................................89
Figure 31 – Exhibitors: areas for improvement in 2001....................................................................90
Figure 33 – Correlations with the question achievement of objectives in 2001...........................92
Figure 34 – Correlations with the question intention to continue participating in 2001............92
9
Figure 35 – Correlations with the question achievement of objectives in 2002...........................92

Figure 36 – Correlations with the question fair as an excellent means of impelling business...93
Figure 37 – Correlations with the question intention to continue participating in 2002............93
Figure 38 – Visitors: comparison of global averages of each section in 2001 and 2002.............94
Figure 39 – Visitors: highlights in 2001.................................................................................................95
Figure 40 – Visitors: highlights in 2002.................................................................................................96
Figure 43 – Correlations with the question achievement of objectives..........................................98
Figure 44 – Correlations with the question intention to continue visiting ....................................99
Figure 45 – Correlations with the question fair as an excellent means of discovering what’s
new in the market.......................................................................................................................99
Figure 46 – Correlations with the question Exponor provides an excellent service ................ 100
10
11
12
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Compared to other European counterparts, Portuguese companies were later to wake

for the relevance of considering customer satisfaction when contemplating their
business policies. Firms in highly competitive sectors like banks were pioneer in
implementing programs to assess their customers’ satisfaction and particular needs.
Other areas were much less concerned with that.
The trade fair market in Portugal is controlled by just two organizers, both owng their
own venues, located 300 km apart one from the other, in the two main cities – Porto
and Lisbon. Both organizers are 100% owned by the two main business associations
in the country and, at least in theory, both are non-profit oriented, but solely aimed at
promoting the development of the national economy. The universe of the prospect
clients is geographically divided among them, one controlling the north of Portugal,
and the other dominating over the south. The two organizers are Exponor and FIL
and both control about 90% of the total offer of trade shows in Portugal. In this
environment the bargaining power of customers is reasonably low.
Though there are other forms of communication with the company’s target, trade
shows hold a unique function, as they open the possibility for face-to-face
communication with a large number of people constituting their own target audience.
Usually lasting just for a few days, trade shows are events at which suppliers display
their products and services for review by potential buyers. Centered on a specific
industry or topic, a trade show draws significant numbers of attendees interested in
learning more about products and services in their specific field.
13
The study includes two main sections:
1. The fist one, including chapters 2 to 5, gives an overview of the evolution of

trade fairs in Portugal and around the world, the existing categories of
exhibitions, the main organizer in Portugal, the decoration market in Portugal
and the reason for having chosen INTERDECORAÇÃO to do this study.
2. The second part includes from chapter 6 all the way till the end. It focuses on
the research design and methodology adopted; the detailed data analysis of
exhibitors and visitors; the identification of highlights and areas for
improvement and the analysis of correlations. At the end there is a global
appreciation and a set of 12 main recommendations to the organizer.
Additionally, there is also an appendix with the original questionnaire used with
exhibitors and visitors, as well as a glossary of terms used and a list of bibliography.
This study intends to be a contribution to a better understanding of the factors of

satisfaction and dissatisfaction of exhibitors and visitors to Portuguese trade fairs,
using a particular one as a model.
14
Chapter 2
TRADE FAIRS AROUND THE WORLD
2.1 Background
The history of humankind is replete with references to fairs, not in an institutional

context, but as a part of everyday social life.
Where and when the first fair was held is not known, however, evidence points to the
existence of fairs as early as 500 B.C. in the Middle East, e.g., Tyre1. Early references
to fairs are mixed with allusions to commerce, trade, the marketplace, festivals,
religious feasts and holy days.
Fairs were commercial in character from the beginning. Merchants from distant
countries would come together, bringing native wares to trade with one another.
It is equally clear that religious activity accompanied the commercial activity. The
Latin world feria, meaning holy day, would appear the logical root of the word fair.
Each feria was a day when large numbers of people would assemble for worship.
During the early Christian era, the church took an active part in sponsoring fairs on
feast days, and as a result, fairs came to be a source of revenue for the church. This
evolution that blended religion and commerce continued over time and moved from
the Mediterranean into Western and Central Europe. Periodic gatherings brought
together the producers of all types of commodities for the purpose of barter,
exchange and, finally, outright sale. To this marketplace were added entertainment
and other forms of activity; thus these primitive markets took on the aspect of fairs,
as we know them today.
1 “History of Fairs.” International Association of Fairs and Expositions web site, 2000
15
The history of German trade fairs begins as far back as 1160 AD when Emperor
Frederick II decreed Frankfurt to be the first trade fair city. He boosted attendance by
guaranteeing safe passage to all visiting merchants, including protection from
indictment and prosecution from local authorities for the duration of the fair, a status
akin to diplomatic immunity. In 1811, during the reign of Napoleon I, the first
exhibition of industrial products was held in the area now known as the city of
Dusseldorf.
In North America, the first fair was presented in Windsor, Nova Scotia in 1765. The
same fair continues to operate today. In Upper Canada, nowadays Ontario, a fair was
held in 1792, sponsored by the Niagara Agricultural Society. As with Windsor, the
Niagara Fair remains in operation today. In addition, many small fairs were held
during the early 1700’s in Quebec while under French rule.
Meanwhile, Elkanah Watson, a New England farmer, earned the title, Father of U.S.
agricultural fairs by producing a small exhibit of sheep under an old elm tree in the
town of Pittsfield, Massachusetts. The year was 1807. In 1810 Watson staged a larger
and more ambitious project, a Berkshire cattle show. The event was successful
beyond all his expectations; entries included 386 sheep, 109 oxen, 9 cows, 7 folds, 3
heifers, 2 calves and 1 boar2.
Early American fairs in both Canada and the U.S. shifted away from the European
festival model into the systematic development of agriculture and animal husbandry
while offering education, local resource and local industry promotion and
entertainment. Competition became the cornerstone of fair programming; youth
development provided a social theme.
2 “History of Fairs.” International Association of Fairs and Expositions web site, 2000
16
The nineteenth century ended with almost every U.S. state and Canadian province
having one or more agricultural fair or exhibition.
2.2 European and American Trade Fairs
In Europe, the modern exhibition industry began in Germany in 1947 when the new
post war era government recognized that economic revival depended on German
exports3. This signaled a departure from the horizontal fairs held for centuries and
represented a shift towards the more vertical format still in practice today. Around
1949 to 1950, the West German government gave the major cities a mandate to help
boost exports. As a result, exhibitions in specific industry segments were parceled out
to various cities where most remain and thrive to this day.
Today, over 5,600 trade shows take place every year all over the world, drawing
approximately 80 million attendees4. They provide industrial exhibits, demonstrations
and competition aimed at the advancement of livestock, horticulture and agriculture.
Fair visitors are also able to see, hear, touch, smell and taste the richness and variety
of what the world has to offer.
The main European trade fairs nowadays are held in Germany, Italy, France, Spain
and the United Kingdom. The number of events has been expanded gradually over
the years, attracting nearly 53 million visitors by 1995 5 . The segmentation and
differentiation of events is a response by trade fair centers and organizers to the
3 Michelle Bruno, “Messe Model - exploring the German trade fair industry”, Expo 24-7 web site, 2001
4 Philip Kotler, Marketing Management (New Jersey: Prentice Hall International, 1997), 668
5 Francesca Golfetto et al; A Profile of the European Trade Fair Sector, 1990-1995. (Chicago: CEIR, Bocconi University
and Wilfrid Laurier University)
17
increasingly specialized needs of exhibitors and visitors, as well as to greater

competition.
The two outstanding characteristics of the European trade fair sector are its
immensity and its long-standing tradition. In addition to the international, national,
and regional trade fairs profiled, thousands of smaller, often sub-regional events are
staged across each country each year. The internationalization of the trade fair sector
is extensive and testifies not only to the trade-orientation of the venues but also to
their international visibility and influence.
In many countries, particularly in the U.S., the exhibition facility is an entirely

different entity from the event organizer. In most European countries, these entities
are often one and the same. Most of the fairgrounds in Europe are built by a local
governing body and turned over to a trade fair company that organizes the major
events, making it both the lessee and the landlord.
Another considerable difference between Europe and the U.S. concerns the services
for the exhibitions. In Europe fair organizations usually provide in-house services,
enabling shows to run more efficiently. Exhibitors are able to benefit from this
infrastructure that serves as a one-stop shop for logistics support. This contrasts sharply
with facilities in the U.S. that control a limited number of show services. As a result,
exhibitors attending the same events from year to year often work with different
general contractors or service providers at each show.
With the exception of utilities, such as electricity or telephone, it goes against the grain
of most European trade fair companies to require that an exhibitor use in-house
contractors for particular show services. Any appointed contractor may work in the
facilities. This practice fosters a healthy competition among contractors, resulting in
competitive pricing and a higher level of service. This way, contractors maintain their
18
clients based on their actual performance rather than as the result of rules and
regulations6.
2.3 Categories of Exhibitions
There are two basic categories of exhibition: trade fairs and public events7.
The yearly exhibition lists always show more trade and industrial events than public or
consumer shows. Manufacturers appealing to industry have to communicate with
their customers somehow. This is usually done through representatives or by
correspondence, but face-to-face meetings provides the best environment for doing
business. A trade show provides this opportunity and, nowadays, there is hardly an
industry that does not have its own exhibition or trade show. Exhibition organizers
and trade associations spend a great deal of time in planning show dates that do not
clash with other industry events around the world to ensure the best buying and
specifying dates for the trade visitors.
2.3.1 Trade and Industrial Fairs
Trade and industrial exhibitions and fairs fall into the following categories:
• Trade fairs for a particular industry or related group.

• Traveling exhibitions for a group or one company: road vehicles, railway
coaches, ships and large aircraft can be used for this purpose.
• Hotel, universities and school exhibitions.
• Combined conferences and exhibitions.
• Company product launches
• Agricultural shows.
6 Michelle Bruno, “Messe Model - exploring the German trade fair industry”, Expo 24-7 web site, 2001
7 Alan Taylor, Profit from Exhibitions and Trade Fairs (Oxford: Management Books 2000, 1995), 5-8
19
2.3.2 Consumer and Public Exhibitions
Consumer shows are intended mainly to attract the public8. They are staged in many
ways and fall into several categories:
• Public exhibitions.
• Garden festivals.
• Agricultural and flower shows.
• Department store exhibitions and promotions.
• Shopping arcade and leisure complex events.
• Local events such as carnivals and fetes.
2.3.3 Other Exhibition Attractions
Department stores may use their windows or an exhibition hall, if they have one, to
house manufacturers’ promotions. For example, perfumery companies may arrange
product promotions with quickly assembled traveling display stands.
Radio, television and video promotions can also be held in this manner. Cars are
frequently displayed in shopping arcades and precincts. Special offers can also be
made with these types of promotion.
With the growing number of hypermarkets and shopping malls, the opportunity of
expanding exhibition capacity will increase as greater numbers of people are attracted
by the visual potential. The greater opportunity of choice and the ability to touch and
examine the products will attract the public.
8 Deborah Robbe, Expositions and Trade Shows (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000), 12-5
20
Chapter 3
TRADE FAIRS IN PORTUGAL
3.1 Historical perspective
Fairs constituted one of the most prominent Portuguese medieval institutions.

Almost all the fairs were held simultaneously with religious feasts; the fairground was
granted a special peaceful ambience, the so-called paz da feira, which forbade all
hostility acts on pain of severe sentences in case of infringement of the law9.
The first reference to a Portuguese fair can be found in 1229 Foral of Castelo Mendo
town and that took place for eight days three times a year. All natives or foreigners
who came to the fair would be protected against all civil or criminal responsibility that
could be threatening them. One of the privileges which favored the development of
fairs was the one that excused all merchants from the payment of certain taxes such
as tolls – the feiras francas.
After the reign of Afonso III (1248-1279) a number of new fairs appeared while an
enlargement of the law guarantees and privileges granted to merchants occurred. The
increase of internal trade through the institution of fairs originated the population
growth of determined scarcely populated areas, apart from enlarging the crown
income.
Under the rule of king Dinis (1279-1325) the previous effort is activated. Entre
Douro e Minho, Beira or even Alentejo provinces hold numerous fairs, namely feiras
francas.
9 Virgínia Rau, “Feiras”, Dicionário de História de Portugal, II (1985), 539.
21
After the reign of Fernando (1357-1367) the situation began to change. First,
subsequent wars were fought with Castile, which greatly harmed the trading routes.
Afterwards, there was the 1383-1385 revolution, which enhanced the royal protection
to city and small town merchants to the detriment of fairs.
In spite of the 1528 and 1576 concession of a feira franca to, respectively, Vila Viçosa
and Porto, the end of the fifteenth century seems to be already considered as the
period of weakness of fairs in Portugal. Cities and small towns, having grown and
developed, served the economic interests and needs of local communities more
adequately than fairs. Obviously such decline evolved in the sixteenth century, when
Portugal became a sea power and the great commerce definitely converged to the
coastal cities. After the reign of Manuel I (1495-1521) fairs enter a decay period10.
Fairs were still instituted in the eighteenth century. An animal and woolen cloth was
created in 1720 in Porto. In 1776, under the government of Marquis of Pombal, the
first Portuguese industrial fair or exhibition was held in Oeiras, having all national
industrial products of the country shown there.
By the mid-19th century in Portugal the industrial capitalism was at full bloom.
Technical schools opened in Porto and Lisbon, teaching chemistry, applied
mathematics, machine engineering and industrial design. The intellectual elite stood
up for the virtues of technology and science as solutions to the country’s economic
underdevelopment11.
10 Virgínia Rau, “Feiras”, Dicionário de História de Portugal, II (1985): 542

11 M. Tereza Siza, O Porto e os Seus Fotógrafos (Porto: Porto Editora, 2001), 35.
22
The oldest industrial association in Portugal was founded in 1837, during the liberal
reign of queen Maria II (1826-1853). It was called Associação Industrial Portuguesa
(AIP – Portuguese Industrial Association) established in Lisbon12.
José Vitorino Damásio, a professor in the Polytechnic School of Porto, leading a

group of local businessmen, incorporates, in 1849, the Associação Industrial
Portuense (Porto Industrial Association)13, later to be called Associação Empresarial
de Portugal (AEP – Portuguese Business Association). The young Association
promoted its first industrial exhibition in July 1857.
Four years later, it was responsible for the 1861 Great Exhibition held at Palácio da
Bolsa (the local stock exchange building), with eight halls and galleries fully devoted to
the state-of-the-art of the national industrial production of the time. It had the
presence of king Pedro V.
The plans for the construction of a new specific trade fair precinct were shown to the
public. King Pedro V himself laid the first stone for the future exhibition forum of
Palácio de Cristal.
Also in Lisbon, during the 1860s the Associação Industrial Portuguesa contribution
was decisive to the set up of several industrial fairs.
In 1865 Palácio de Cristal was inaugurated with the International Industrial

Exhibition of Porto and the Iberian Peninsula. By financing the building of the
precinct, Porto laborious civil society had slapped in the face of an absent
uncooperative government, who had refused to support and provide money for the
project. Porto’s Palácio de Cristal was a replica of the London’s exhibition center. Its
12 Armando de Castro, “A transformação da vida económica portuguesa (1820-1851)”, História de Portugal, 6 (1983):
210.
13 Luís A de Oliveira Ramos, História do Porto (Porto: Porto Editora, 1994), 444.
23
author was the English architect Thomas Diller Jones. The fundamental iron and
glass structure as well as the dome of the central nave originated from England.
The inauguration of the Porto exhibition palace was celebrated with the International
Industry Exhibition and counted with the presence of king Luis, the queen and the
crown prince. 3.139 exhibitors participated, the majority from Portugal and its
colonies along with a notorious foreign presence: 499 Frenchmen, 265 Germans, 107
Englishmen, 89 Belgians, 62 Brazilians, 24 Spaniards, 16 Danes, 2 Russians; Holland,
Turkey, U.S.A. and Japan represented by an exhibitor each14.
In 1888, in Lisbon, the National Exhibition of the Manufacturing Industry

constituted such a vast success that the responsibility for organizing the Portuguese
representation to the Universal Exposition of 1889 in Paris was granted to AIP.
AIP in Lisbon also in charge of the first Commercial and Industrial Associations’
Congress carried out in Portugal, in 1923, and the 1st. Congress of the Portuguese
Industry, in 1933, demonstrated a remarkable capacity of mobilization and the firm
attitude of Portuguese businessmen during the hard times of the economic depression
of the 1930s.
In 1957, AIP opened a modern venue especially designed for holding trade shows,
the International Fair of Lisbon (FIL), located in Junqueira borough, in Lisbon. The
Fair of the Portuguese Industries, the first one to take place in the new venue, was,
definitely, an event that helped to project the Portuguese industry abroad15.
In Northern Portugal, AEP created a separate department especially devoted to

organizing industrial trade shows in 1964. And later on that decade, fairs and
14 M. Tereza Siza, O Porto e os Seus Fotógrafos (Porto: Porto Editora, 2001), 41.
15 Deloitte & Touche, Estudo Sobre o Mercado de Feiras e Exposições, (Lisboa: Gabinete Gestor do PEDIP – Ministério
da Economia, 1995), 61.
24
exhibitions began to be staged regularly in Braga, beginning with the first Agriculture
& Industry Fair, in 1968, held on the grounds near to the Municipal Stadium during
St. John’s festivities in June. Acknowledging the growing importance of this event, the
Braga Municipality decided to erect a venue with adequate conditions for staging the
agriculture show and others targeted at major economic activities in the region, like
furniture and civil engineering.
Created in 1981, the Braga Exhibition Center – PEB is the only venue in the Minho
province that is especially fitted to host fairs, exhibitions, conferences and other
special events on a national and an international scale. Already in 1981, the
Agriculture & Industry Fair was admitted to the Union des Foirs Internationales –
UFI, thus obtaining the status of international fair, under the name of Agro -
International Trade Fair for Agriculture, Cattle Breeding & Food. In 1984 it joined
The European Agricultural Society & Show Organizers Consultative Committee –
Eurasco16.
In Porto, from 1968 to 1986, 74 trade fairs were held, to which 5,200 exhibitors and 2
million visitors acceded. These exhibitions took place in Pavilhão dos Desportos,
which succeeded to the former Palácio de Cristal. Once created to organize sportive
events, Pavilhão dos Desportos showed great difficulty in managing to shelter events
that never ceased to grow. During the 1970s there were several projects for the
building of a new fair venue in Porto. The project that was nearly materialized
foresaw the construction of a venue identical to Lisbon’s, whose name would be
Expo-Porto, in the city western area 17 . Several conflicts with Porto city council
postponed the construction of the project until, already in the 1980s the alternative of
erecting the precinct in the north outskirts of the city appeared.
16 Deloitte & Touche, Estudo Sobre o Mercado de Feiras e Exposições, (Lisboa: Gabinete Gestor do PEDIP – Ministério
da Economia, 1995), 81.
17 Fernando de Sousa et al; A Associação Industrial Portuense (Porto: AIPortuense, 1996), 204-9.
25
In 1987 Exponor was inaugurated in Leça da Palmeira with 20,000 square meters of
covered area. Three years later there was the first expansion phase in which the
congress center was enlarged and another hall was built18.
In 1991 Exponor - Feira Internacional do Porto joined the Union des Foires
Internationales (UFI), main international institution within fairs and exhibition sector.
On top of that, in 1995 the inauguration of Europarque, 30 km south of Porto, has
improved the supply of modern quality spaces for the organization of great events.19
Over the years, the spectacular growth in the number of trade fairs and the space
booked for exhibitions forced Exponor to grow and to initiate numerous
improvement and enlargement programs. By 1998, the enlargement program included
the construction of a 6th hall and new galleries, with a total area of 19,000 square
meters, as well as a new access system, parking lots for 2,000 vehicles and other
outdoor arrangements.
That same year, Exponor begin to hold trade shows outside of Portugal, with the first
fairs in Ourense (Galicia, Spain) and in Praia (Cape Verde) and, in the following year,
in Maputo (Mozambique).
In 1999, FIL was transferred to the ultra-modern facilities left over after the Expo’98
– World Exposition held in Lisbon, and now part of the urban development project
Parque das Nações. Present-day FIL is located at a crossroads of major traffic arteries,
including a ferry terminal, Lisbon’s ring highway, the brand-new Vasco da Gama
bridge and Oriente train station, the hub for the various networks of public
transportation, with a metro (subway) station, trains, buses, taxis and easy airport
links. Airline passengers can even check-in for their flights here.
18 Fernando de Sousa et al; A Associação Industrial Portuense (Porto: AIPortuense, 1996), 241.
19 Fernando de Sousa et al; A Associação Industrial Portuense (Porto: AIPortuense, 1996), 245.
26
Apart form opening delegations in several cities around the world, Exponor decided
to create, in 1999, Exponor-Brasil, Ltda., taking the “Portuguese way” of doing trade
shows to South America. From its headquarters in the city of São Paulo, Exponor is
investing on the organization of trade fairs within the sectors of furniture and
decoration, home textiles, jewelry and clock-making, construction and public works,
air-conditioning, domotics and electrical and electronic industry.
By mid-2001 Exponor - Feira Internacional do Porto was the first Portuguese trade
show organizer to be certified against ISO 9001 international quality standards.
However, in the dawn of the third millennium, the Portuguese trade show organizers
still fail to overcome their differences and unite under a single association that could
help to promote the trade show sector.
3.2 Trade Fair Organizers
Although there are many trade fair organizers in Portugal, just a few of them are
professional full-time organizers. The most representative exhibition venues in
Portugal are:
• Aveiro: Parque de Feiras e Exposições de Aveiro

• Batalha: Exposalão da Batalha
• Braga: PEB – Parque de Exposições de Braga
• Caldas da Rainha: Expoeste – Divisão de Feiras e Congressos; Associação para o
Desenvolvimento Industrial do Oeste
• Coimbra: CIC – Exposições e Feiras do Centro
• Lisbon: FIL – Feira Internacional de Lisboa
• Paços de Ferreira: Parque de Exposições da Capital do Móvel; AEPF –
Associação Empresarial de Paços de Ferreira
• Porto: Exponor – Feira Internacional do Porto
• Santa Maria da Feira: Europarque – Centro de Congressos
27
• Santarém: CNEMA – Centro Nacional de Exposições e Mercados Agrícolas

• Setúbal: Exposet – Departamento de Feiras e Exposições; AERSET – Associação
Empresarial da Região de Setúbal
• Torres Novas: Exposant – Departamento de Feiras e Exposições; NERSANT –
Associação Empresarial da Região de Santarém
• Viseu: Expovis – Promoções e Eventos20
Apart from these, there are also companies specialized in organizing trade shows but
they do not hold their own venues so, in order to set up their events, they need to
rent the facilities from one, or several, of the below exhibition centers:
• Alternativa
• Certame
• Ecorex
• Expolíder – Feiras, Exposições e Congressos
• Lógico
• Nutrilimpa
• Promexpo
• Publisalão - Serviços e Promoção do Automóvel
However, except for PEB, FIL and Exponor none of the above have their statistics
validated by any auditing firm, so their data can be regarded as non-reliable21.
PEB, FIL and Exponor are the only Portuguese organizers that, since the mid-1980s,
continuously submit their statistics to the scrutiny of an external auditing firm. These
three are also the only Portuguese trade fairs organizers that are members of Union
des Foires Internationales - UFI.
20 Márcia Viegas, Marketing de Feiras. Manual do Expositor (Lisboa: Edições Sílabo, 2000), 30.
21 Márcia Viegas, Marketing de Feiras. Manual do Expositor (Lisboa: Edições Sílabo, 2000), 31.
28
3.2.1 The Braga Exhibition Center – PEB
Created in 1981, the Braga Exhibition Center – PEB 22 has become a member-
organizer of two major international fairs organizations – UFI and Eurasco –,
consolidating its position as one of the leading Portuguese exhibition centers and
winning a prestigious international acknowledgement. Besides using its premises for
its own initiatives, PEB hires them to third-party bodies, which stage their own
events.
350.000
EXPONOR
300.000 FIL
250.000
200.000
150.000
100.000
50.000
0
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Figure 1 – Evolution of rented area in square meters between 1995 and 2001.23
Its premises with a total surface area of 45,000 sq. m, with 15,858 sq. m of covered
exhibition space distributed by the main hall, hall 2, outdoor pavilions, the translucent
pavilion and the cattle-breeding pavilion – the remaining area being aimed to host
22 Main information source: PEB web site, www.peb.pt, 2002

23 Portugal 1995 - Fairs And Exhibitions Statistics, (Lisboa: BDO, 1996); Portugal 1996 - Fairs And Exhibitions Statistics,
(Lisboa: BDO, 1997); Portugal 1997 - Fairs And Exhibitions Statistics, (Lisboa: BDO, 1998); Portugal 1998 - Fairs
And Exhibitions Statistics, (Lisboa: BDO, 1999); Portugal 1999-2000 - Fairs And Exhibitions Statistics, (Lisboa: BDO,
2001). 2001 figures provided by organizers.
29
open air events. The exhibition space includes a number of infrastructures in its
singles modules, such as water supply, electricity and telephone facilities.
As complementary structure of the exhibition complex, PEB has a congress center,

which is intended to give support to the fairs initiatives and, on the other hand, to be
a meeting-point and an assisting fixture to activities carried out by the local business,
scientific and cultural communities, as well as many other public and private events.
The congress center includes an auditorium with a seating capacity of 1,300, six
booths for simultaneous translation, sound and projection booths, various support
services like bar, restaurant, and press room, as well as other smaller meeting rooms.
10.000
EXPONOR
FIL
9.000
8.000
7.000
6.000
5.000
4.000
3.000
2.000
1.000
0
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Figure 2 – Evolution of the number of exhibitors between 1995 and 2001.24
2001). 2001 figures provided by organizers.
30
3.2.2 International Fair of Lisbon – FIL
The Associação Industrial Portuguesa (AIP – Portuguese Industrial Association) was

established in 1837 and has organized fairs since 1888. 25
Between 1957 and 1999, most AIP’s fairs were held in their premises of Junqueira, in
Lisbon. In 1999, FIL was transferred to the ultra-modern facilities left over after the
Expo’98 – World Exposition held in Lisbon. Its premises include a total surface area
of 100,000 sq. m, with 42,000 sq. m of covered exhibition space distributed by four
contiguous halls.
Meanwhile, the old exhibition ground has been transformed into Lisbon Congress
Center, ready to host events up to 3,500 people and has a 10,000 sq m exhibition area,
with all the services required for congresses, meetings, small exhibitions and other
events. Overlooking the Tagus river, it is now a prestigious area of the city of Lisbon.
In 2000 it was also used as the headquarters of the Portuguese Presidency of the
European Union.
3.2.3 Exponor – Porto International Fair
Exponor is Portugal’s largest exhibition center, and considered to be the Iberian

center with the best performance in terms of internationalization. It is the fair and
exhibition center par excellence of the industrial sectors of the whole northwestern
region of the Iberian Peninsula.26
Exponor is owned by Associação Empresarial de Portugal (AEP – Portuguese

Business Association) – originally founded in 1849 in Porto by the city’s businessmen
25 Main information sources: AIP web site, www.aip.pt and FIL web site, www.fil.pt, 2001.
26 Main information sources: AEP web site, www.aeportugal.pt and EXPONOR web site, www.exponor.pt, 2002.
31
and recognized as the Chamber of Commerce and Industry for the Northern Region
of Portugal.
AEP’s expertise in organizing trade shows dates back more than a century. AEP
promoted the first exhibition in October 1856. Between 1865 and 1987 most
exhibitions were held, first in Palácio de Cristal and, afterwards, in Pavilhão dos
Desportos that was built in the same place. From 1987 onwards, most events have
been held in Exponor.
500.000
450.000 EXPONOR
FIL
400.000
350.000
300.000
250.000
200.000
150.000
100.000
50.000
0
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Figure 3 - Evolution of the number of trade visitors between 1995 and 200127
Presently, Exponor occupies a covered area of 60,000 sq. m. and it is strategically

located a few miles from Porto’s downtown and is linked to all main cities in the
region and to the Spanish border by modern highway networks. Just outside
2001). 2001 figures provided by organizers; n/a for FIL
32
Exponor’s gates stands the Leixões sea harbor and ten minutes away from the Porto
International Airport.
33
34
Chapter 4
THE DECORATION MARKET IN PORTUGAL
The decoration market is basically composed of two main sectors: ceramics and glass.
4.1 Ceramics
The ceramics industry has a significant weight in Portugal’s processing industry. In

1998, it represented 1.7% of the gross added value and 2.5% of employment.28
The sustained growth of the turnover, the gross added value (annual average growth
rate between 1990 and 1995 of 12.1% and 10%, respectively) and the work
productivity reflect the favorable evolution of this sector over the past few years.29
The increase in production caused significant internal changes in the sector, helping
improve the quality standards and stimulate productivity in the structural ceramics
subsector (manufacture of tiles, bricks and vaults), obtain economies of scale in
ceramics and finishes (including the manufacture of floors, coating and toilet devices)
and promote the internationalization of the decorative pottery subsector.
Due to the increasing competition of Italian and Spanish products, among others, the
growth of domestic demand is conditioned by key factors, such as quality/price ratio,
design, differentiation of products, image, promotion policy and marketing channels.
The ceramics sector grew based on cheap labor force: today, the increasing
automation of a large number of companies implies the recruitment of technicians.
28 Interdecoração – Estudo Sectorial, (Matosinhos: AEP, 2001), 8.

35
Companies in this sector are essentially located near raw materials. Portugal has many
raw materials with excellent quality standards, a potential competitive factor. There
are, however, some problems in maintaining the quality of raw materials, due to an
incorrect mining of ore. Due to the competition for the possession of the mining
ores, their management is expected to improve.
STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES
• Sustained growth of turnover, GAV and work • Industrial ceramics highly dependent on
productivity economic cycles and the building sector
• Increase in quality and productivity standards • Foreign trade concentrated on the European
in structural ceramic subsector market, with particular emphasis on the
• Economies of scale in ceramics Spanish market with regard to imports
• Differentiation and range of products of • Heavy technological dependence on foreign
Portuguese production market
• Vocation for exports • High energy cost
• Quality, prestige and image, at international • Lack of control of the marketing circuits,
level, in the area of floors and coating, pottery except a few companies
and porcelain
• Raw materials available in quantity and quality
OPPORTUNITIES THREATS
• Internationalization of the sector in general and • Competitors such as Japan, China and South
of the decorative pottery subsector in particular Korea in artistic and decorative ceramics with
• Exports to the Portuguese speaking African perfect replicas sold at very low prices
countries • More competition in industrial ceramics
• Advances in technology
• Vocational training
• Construction of a chain capable of creating
added value
Figure 4 - SWOT analysis of the Porcelain, Pottery, Stoneware and Earthenware manufacturing
sector.
Portuguese ceramics offer a variety of products that are the result of a number of
techniques and raw materials, in order to satisfy the final customer.
The sector is mainly made up of small and medium-sized companies, which are
specially located to the North of Lisbon, with particular emphasis on the district of
36
Leiria, in Central Portugal (main supplier of raw material for ceramics) and Aveiro, in
the Northern region.
The ceramic industry in Portugal is steeped in tradition. Being part of the processing
industry, the sector (with particular emphasis on household and decorative ceramics)
has a vocation in exports.
In general terms, the sector’s foreign trade is positive, representing approximately €

300 million. The weight of the sector’s exports and imports in the country’s exports
and imports is 2.14% and 0.51%, respectively, (1998 data)30.
The Portuguese porcelain is widely regarded as a high quality and prestigious product
in international markets. However, as far as artistic and decorative ceramics are
concerned, competition is fiercer and fiercer. Japan, China, South Korea and Taiwan
make perfect replicas. In result of having poor quality these products are sold at very
low prices.
4.2 Glass
In the context of the processing industry in Portugal, the glass and glass articles
manufacturing sector has a lower profile compared to the ceramics manufacturing
sector.
The processing level of this sector is quite above the average of the processing
industry. Therefore, in relative terms, this industry is characterized as a powerful
means of generating added value.
The sector is made up of small and medium-sized companies, and the average
number of workers per company is twenty. These companies are essentially located in
37
the Center and Northern regions of Portugal, being responsible for 37.1% and 34.8%,
respectively, of the companies in the sector (1995 data).31
Within the glass industry, crystal, a subsector in which hand labor is vital, registered
an increase in domestic demand, with particular emphasis on quality and competitive
products.
STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES
• A powerful generator of added value, an • Dependence of the packaging glass subsector

industry with tradition and image in the market on the food and beverage industry’s demand
of crystal products for packaging
• Know-how in manual production of glass and • Low level of recycling
crystal • Sector highly dependent on the European
• Differentiation and range of products of market in general and the Spanish market in
Portuguese production particular, with regard to imports and exports
• Vocation for exports • Marketing circuits
• Quality and prestige of glass products in
general and crystal products in particular, both
at home and abroad
OPPORTUNITIES THREATS
• Diversification of markets and inter- • New competitors

nationalization
• Advances in technology
• Vocational training
• Creation of a chain capable of creating added
value
• Economies of scale in the packaging glass
subsector
Figure 5 - SWOT Analysis of the Glass Manufacturing Sector
This evolution has been accompanied by an increasing number of stores, especially

located near factories, as well as an increase in the added value of the products on the
market due to the technological investments made.
38
Approximately 90% of the glass and crystal industry is located in area around Marinha
Grande (district of Leiria, Central Portugal) leading to the creation of an official
“Region of Glass” in 1999 by the Government. The creation of the Region of Glass
in Marinha Grande, associated to the trademark MG, aims to promote the cultural
heritage of the region and protect the interests of the crystal sector, combining
tradition with innovation, and, above all, guaranteeing the quality and promotion of
the product, both in Portugal and abroad.32
32 Decree-law n. º 154/99 of 10th May, article 2, n. º 1.
39
40
Chapter 5
INTERDECORAÇÃO TRADE FAIR
5.1 Background
INTERDECORAÇÃO is Exponor’s most recent trade fair specifically devoted to

the decoration and furniture market. Others are EXPORT HOME, CASATÊXTIL
and CERANOR/BRINDE.
• EXPORT HOME: Held in March every year since 1988, it is specially focused
in lighting, furnishings and decoration sectors with a particular emphasis in
modern furniture.
• CERANOR/BRINDE: First held in 1990 includes a ceramics, glass, decorative
arts and household gadgets section and a toys and gifts area. These two combined
events are held in September and are exclusively designed for trade visitors.
CERANOR/BRINDE is the biggest decoration industry exhibition held in
Portugal.
• CASATÊXTIL: First held in 1994, the household textiles and decoration
exhibition is held with the cooperation of the two main Portuguese textile
associations. Traditionally supported by ICEP, this is the most international of all
decoration trade shows held in Exponor with a considerable amount of buying
visitors coming from all over Europe, especially from Scandinavia, and North
America. This trade show is held every year in October.
Based of the know-how accumulated in Portugal, in the late 90s Exponor also started
holding decoration trade fairs in São Paulo, Brazil.
In 1998, Exponor decided to organize another fair the following year aiming at
responding to the countless requests of the exhibitors, who asked for an exhibition
devoted to decoration in the first semester of the year, in order to meet their
customers before Easter. The fact that many retailers also said they were in need to
restock and renew their shops immediately after Christmas sales, led Exponor to
41
decide for January as the right month to set up this trade show, to be called
INTERDECORAÇÃO.
5.2 The First Semester Decoration Fair
INTERDECORAÇÃO started in January 1999, covering the following areas:

decorative ceramics (porcelain, stoneware, pottery, red clay), glass and crystal, various
decorative articles, decorative furniture, household utilities, table and kitchen articles,
wood and cork articles; silvered metals; fresh and dry flowers; gardening and
floriculture articles and decorative cloths.
It aims at decorators and decoration shops, wholesalers and retailers from the sectors
represented, shopping malls, hotels, restaurants and similar businesses, professionals
in the sector. It was a success from the very first edition, gaining in also sophistication
in the level of exhibitors and in the parallel activities.
The parallel activities included a Trends Forum where the patterns, colors and materials
that shaped the season were presented, organized by some of the most prominent
professionals of decoration and interior design in Portugal and Brazil with
international projection. Seminars, conferences and debates were held very year, on
relevant themes to the decoration professionals.
In the 2002 edition, over 500 foreign professionals visited the event. These came
from several countries such as Belgium, Canada, France, Finland, Germany, Greece,
India, Israel, Italy, Pakistan, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United
Kingdom. The significance of INTERDECORAÇÃO in the international scene of
trade shows led the UFI – The Global Association for the Exhibition Industry to
approve the event in 2001.
42
Chapter 6
RESEARCH DESIGN
This customer satisfaction assessment was carried through in the sequence of two
editions of venue INTERDECORAÇÃO that took place in Exponor – International
Fair of Porto between 25 and 28 of January 2001 and 31 January and 3 February
2002. In both cases, the method used for the gathering of the data was the posting of
a questionnaire.
6.1 Structure of the Sample
Three weeks after the closing of each edition questionnaires were sent to all the
exhibitors present in the fair and to a sample of visitors.
In 2001, of the 300 questionnaires sent to the exhibitors 57 responses have been
received, which corresponds to a reply rate of 19%. The rate of reply to the
questionnaires sent to the visitors was of approximately 10%, from a total of 90 sent
questionnaires only 9 replied.
In 2002, questionnaires were sent to all 298 exhibitors and – considering the weak
reply of the previous year – randomly to an increased number of 350 visitors. The
number of replies from exhibitors was 56 and 17 of the visitors. The rate of responses
was, therefore, 19% in what concerns the exhibitors and 5% in relation to visitors.
43
6.2 Methodologies and Structure of the Questionnaires
The questionnaires were conceived in order to evaluate the satisfaction of the

customer exhibitor and visitor in their participation in the 2001 and 2002 editions of
INTERDECORAÇÃO. These questionnaires were conceived based on the
SERVQUAL methodology, which allows the evaluation of the rendered services
according to five dimensions of quality:
• Tangibles: The appearance of physical facilities, equipment, personnel and

communication materials.
• Reliability: Ability to perform the promised service dependably and accurately.
• Responsiveness: Willingness to help customers and provide prompt service
• Assurance: Knowledge and courtesy of employees and their ability to inspire
trust and confidence
• Empathy: Caring individualized attention the firm provides its customers33
In terms of evaluation of the service, the questionnaire aimed to be as exhaustive as

possible in the gathering of information of each one of the phases of contact
between the customer and the services rendered by Exponor, the fair organizer.
Thus, the questionnaire for exhibitors was composed of questions related to the
contact of the customer with Exponor previous to the fair, to the phases of
assembly and dismantling, during the course of the fair, and to the organization
itself. Further to these questions, the customer was requested to make a global
evaluation of its participation in the fair regarding the global quality of the service
provided, to the value the fair added to his/her activity and the results of his/her
participation.
33 Valarie A Zeithaml at al; Delivering Quality Service (New York: The Free Press, 1990), 26
44
As complement to the sections of evaluation of the service, the questionnaire

contained questions that aimed to characterize the customer and to determine its
main motivations and goals of participation.
The questionnaire for exhibitors was structured in eight distinct sections:
• Characterization of the exhibitor

• Contact with Exponor
• Assembly
• Dismantling
• Exhibition
• Organization
• Global Appreciation
• Final Section with questions related to the motivations and goals of the
participating exhibitors and evaluation of the ways used for divulging
The original questionnaire sent to the exhibitors is shown in Appendix A.
The structure of the questionnaire for visitors is perceptibly the same, exception made
to the questions related with the assembly and dismantling phases. As in the case of
the exhibitors, it also was tried to collect information to characterize the visitor and to
determine his/her goals and volume of purchases in the fair.
In the case of the visitors the questionnaire was composed by six sections:
• Characterization of the visitor

• Contact with Exponor
• Exhibition
• Organization
• Global Appreciation
• Final Section with questions related to the goals of the visit, volume of purchases
and evaluation of the ways used for divulging
45
The original questionnaire sent to the visitors is shown in Appendix B.
The Likert Scaling 34 was the method adopted in the questionnaire to quantify the
evolution, with items rated on a 1-to-5 Disagree-Agree response scale:
• 1 = strongly disagree; totally unfavorable to the concept

• 2 = disagree; somewhat unfavorable to the concept
• 3 = undecided; neither agree, nor disagree
• 4 = agree; somewhat favorable to the concept
• 5 = strongly agree; totally favorable to the concept
Most items also had a “not applicable” option.
34 William M.K. Trochim, “Likert Scaling” (Bill Trochim’s Center for Social Research Methods web site:
trochim.human.cornell.edu)
46
Chapter 7
DATA ANALYSIS
The statistics analysis of the data was made separately for exhibitors and for visitors.
Inside each section, the analysis structure is identical to the structure of the
questionnaires, with the presentation of the results obtained for each one of the
questions in 2001 and 2002 and comments, whenever they were thought to be
necessary or whenever the comparison or crossing with the results of another
question was relevant.
Based on the collected data, it was also possible to carry out analysis of correlation
and identify trends. This is presented in the final conclusions.
7.1. Customer Satisfaction Assessment Analysis – Exhibitors
7.1.1 Exhibitors’ Profile
The first section of the questionnaire intended to characterize each exhibitor through
the company’s share capital, its volume of sales, the number of employees and the
sector it belongs to. Additionally, information concerning the exhibitors’ participation
was requested.
47
7.1.1.1 Share capital

From the 57 exhibitors, who in 2001 indicated the value of their share capital, half
pointed out a value equal or inferior than € 50 thousand while 6 exhibitors indicated
values of share capital above € 300 thousand.
Share capital 2001 2002
< = € 50,000 50% 39%
€ 50,000 - 100,000 21% 6%
€ 100,000 - 150,000 5% 13%
€ 150,000 - 200,000 5% 3%
€ 200,000 - 250,000 3% 10%
€ 250,000 - 300,000 5% 3%
> € 300,000 11% 26%
Figure 6 - Distribution of the exhibitors in accordance with the share capital
In relation to 2002, 39% of the companies indicated values of share capital inferior
to € 50 thousand. Another significant group is constituted by 26% of exhibitors
who indicated values of share capital superior to € 300 thousand.
7.1.1.2 Sales Volume

In terms of the 2001 sales volume, 40% of the exhibitors indicated values below €
500 thousand and only 12% indicated values over € 2,500 thousand. The percentage
of responses to this question is inferior to the one observed about the share capital.
Only 26 responses were obtained.
48
Sales Volume 2001 2002
< = € 500,000 40% 41%
€ 500,000 - 1,000,000 23% 6%
€ 1,000,000 - 1,500,000 15% 11%
€ 1,500,000 - 2,000,000 5% 12%
€ 2,000,000 - 2,500,000 5% 6%
> € 2,500,000 12% 24%
Figure 7 - Distribution of the exhibitors in accordance to the sales volume
On the other hand, the 2002 inquiry reveals two distinct groups of exhibitors; in
opposite ends of the table, much alike what happens with the share capital. In relation
to the sales volume, it was verified that 41% of exhibitors have a sales volume inferior
to € 500 thousand. The second biggest percentage of exhibitors - 24% - has a sales
volume superior to € 2,500 thousand.
7.1.1.3 Number of Employees

Number of
2001 2002
Employees
<5 26% 31%
5-9 44% 24%
10 - 14 18% 21%
15 - 19 5% 15%
20 - 24 0% 3%
> 25 7% 6%
Figure 8 - Distribution of the exhibitors in accordance with the number of employees
49
Regarding the number of employees working for the participating companies in

INTERDECORAÇÃO 2001 there is a bigger incidence of small companies: 70%
of the exhibitors who answered the question indicated to have 10 or less employees.
With regard to the number of employees, in 2002 the table indicates that more than
50% of the exhibitors have less than 10 employees and only 6% of the exhibitors
affirm to have more than 25 staff members.
7.1.1.4 Participation
Relatively to the assiduity of the exhibitors, in 2001 about 90% of the exhibitors
who answered this question had already participated in previous editions of this fair.
2001 2002
Exhibitor in previous editions 91% 79%
1st participation 9% 21%
Figure 9 - Division habitual/new exhibitors
79 % of the exhibitors who answered this question in 2002 had already participated in
previous editions of INTERDECORAÇÃO while for 21% this was the first time.
7.1.1.5 Sector
Finally, in relation to the sector, in 2001 the great majority of the exhibitors did not
indicate the sector they belong to and even some of the received responses do not
make much sense, therefore it was not possible to make an analysis of the exhibitors
having the sector as a criterion.
Relatively to this aspect, only 23% replied to this question in 2002. The most
represented subclass is related to “Manufacturing of confectioned textile articles,
other than clothing” with 3 exhibitors. Two subclasses with 2 participations each
50
follow, one concerning “Whole-sale commerce of other consumer goods” and the
other being related to “Retail commerce; repairing of personal and domestic
goods”. Following a list of subclasses which obtained only one reply: “Confection
of other exterior clothing”, “Pottery”, “Manufacture of faience, porcelain and fine
stoneware”, “Wholesale of raw tobacco”, “Wholesale of clothing and accessories”,
and “Wholesale of domestic electrical appliances, radio and television sets”.
7.1.2 Contact with Exponor
Specifically referring to the part of the exhibitors’ satisfaction evaluation, the first
section of the questionnaire focus on the contact with the staff of Exponor, in the
period that preceded INTERDECORAÇÃO trade fair.
In accordance with the proposed methodology, this section aimed to evaluate aspects
related to:
• Reliability: Ability to perform promised service dependably and accurately

• Responsiveness: Willingness to help customers to provide prompt service
• Competence: Possession of required skill and knowledge to perform service
• Courtesy: Politeness, respect, consideration and friendliness of contact personnel
• Credibility: Trustworthiness, believability, honesty of the service provider
• Access: Approachability and ease of contact35
In 2001 the global score of items was situated above 4 points, in a scale up to 5. The
lowest value was found in the question related to the location of the stand. The
explanation for this score may not only be related specifically to the location of the
stand itself, but it can also be a result of the defective sectorialization of this fair. In
fact, through the analysis of the suggestions and comments made by the exhibitors in
35 Valarie A Zeithaml at al; Delivering Quality Service (New York: The Free Press, 1990), 21-22.
51
the questionnaires, it became clear that for some exhibitors the “mixing” of several
kinds of products in each sector constitutes a problem.
Among the positive aspects to be detached is the high percentage obtained to the
question related to the visit of Exponor sales representatives and their friendliness.
In the evaluation of the contact with Exponor in 2002 a generalized decrease of the
score was noticed. To be negatively stressed, as in 2001, is the average score
attributed to the question related to the stand location. To be positively stressed is
the score on the easiness of contact with Exponor.
Despite the differences in relation to 2001, the panorama of responses continues to

be quite positive since the percentage of favourable responses is equal or superior to
75%. The average related to the subject Contact with Exponor descended from 4.14 in
2001 to 3.96 in 2002, which expressed a decrease of 0.18.
2002 vs.
Statements 2001 2002
2001
Exponor's staff was friendly and helpful 4.33 4.07 -0.26
Contact with Exponor to date has been straightforward 4.25 4.14 -0.10
The information to date through contacting Exponor has been
4.14 4.07 -0.07
elucidatory
The documentation supplied was elucidatory with regard to
4.21 3.96 -0.25
organizational aspects
The visit of the Exponor staff member was worthwhile 4.32 4.11 -0.21
The space granted corresponded to what had been agreed 4.25 4.04 -0.21
The site corresponded to that expected 3.54 3.37 -0.17
Average 4.14 3.96 -0.18
Figure 10 - Average scores for the questions regarding section Contact with Exponor
52
From this moment on, in the analysis of the data of the two inquiries, and as a way
of avoiding repetitions, whenever two values are presented in sequence, namely
percentages, it is established that the first value always corresponds to the inquiry of
2001 and the following to the inquiry of 2002, excusing reference to the year.
When it comes to the evaluation of the contact with Exponor in terms of friendliness
and serviceableness of its staff, the panorama of responses was sufficiently favorable,
with 96% (2001) and 87% (2002) of the exhibitors considering that these are
attributes that characterize the employees of Exponor. In spite of the very positive
balance, a decrease of 0.26 in average score was noticed.
The universe of responses regarding the easiness of contacts with Exponor is

equally very positive, having pleased 91% of the exhibitors.
When questioned again about the contacts with Exponor till the date of the fair,
86% and 80% (values concerning, respectively, 2001 and 2002) of the exhibitors
consider that these contacts are enlightening. The significant percentage – 16% in
2002 – of responses to this statement of the type: “Neither agree, nor disagree;
Undecided” has to be pointed out. From all the questions in this chapter, this was
the one that descended the least between 2001 and 2002, only 0.07.
Concerning the clarity of the supplied information, which got a significant

percentage of positive responses (88% in 2001 and 75% in 2002) considering it very
clear, only 4% and 2% of the participants stated to be unsatisfied with the precision
of the supplied documentation. It is also important to remark the significant
percentage of responses to this statement of the type “Neither agree, nor disagree;
Undecided”, particularly in 2002 (18%). Anyway, a considerable decrease in the
average of the exhibitors’ satisfaction related to this aspect, 0.25, occurred in both
years.
53
When the exhibitors were requested to evaluate the worthiness of the visit of
Exponor sales representative, 35% and 27% of the exhibitors classified it as positive.
It is important to point out the very high percentage of responses of the type “Not
applicable”: 56% (2001) and 66% (2002), which is interpreted as being the answers
from the exhibitors that were present in the fair but who didn’t receive the visit of a
commercial agent of Exponor.
Relatively to the space attributed to them, the majority of the exhibitors, 81% and
77%, agreed with it, against 7% and 11% who affirmed some dissatisfaction in
relation to the area granted to them.
Of all the evaluated aspects related to the contact with Exponor, the one that
caused more dissatisfaction to the exhibitors has to do with the location of their
stand. This fact can be proved by the significant percentage of negative responses,
although 55% and 51% of the exhibitors claim to be satisfied with the location.
Thus, to 21% and 29% of the participants that location was not the best one or not
corresponding to their expectations.
Linking these two last questions, it can be concluded that even though the granted
surface corresponded to the location, it did not correspond to the expectations.
7.1.3 Assembly
In the section intended to evaluate the exhibitors’ satisfaction with the assembly
process the average scores are generally positioned below 4 values, in a scale up to 5.
The fact that no exhibitor gave the maximum score to the question related to the
adequacy of the technical resources necessary for the assembly process, in 2001, and,
in 2002, only one exhibitor did so, can be pointed out.
54
Similarly, in 2001, 38% of the exhibitors did not score this question, percentage that
rises to 50% in 2002, which may indicate that they have not used any technical
support.
It is also important to refer that the wide majority of the exhibitors considered that
the process of assembly of edition 2001 of INTERDECORAÇÃO ran better than
the previous edition. This happens again in the 2002 inquiry, which seems to indicate
a perception that the process of assembly has been improving from one edition to the
other.
The average related to the Assembly topic passed from 3.74 in 2001 to 3.48 in 2002,
which expresses a decrease of 0.26, the biggest one among all the subjects of the
inquiry. This means that the exhibitors did not have the perception of any
improvements in this area, quite the contrary.
2002 vs.
2001
Members of staff providing technical services were friendly and
4.02 3.59 -0.43
helpful
The infrastructures (access, parking, etc.) were adequate for the
3.70 3.46 -0.24
assembly process
The assembly timetable met my needs 3.79 3.53 -0.26
The time granted for assembly was suitable for my needs 3.72 3.47 -0.25
The technical resources made available (forklifts, cranes, etc.)
3.49 3.25 -0.24
met my needs
The technical assistance that was made available was effective 3.81 3.59 -0.22
The technical assistance that was made available was sufficient 3.85 3.61 -0.24
In this edition of the exhibition, assembly ran better than in the
3.43 3.26 -0.17
last one
Average 3.74 3.48 -0.26
Figure 11 - Average scores for the questions regarding section Assembly
55
Thus, in relation to the friendliness and serviceableness of the staff members

providing with the technical support, 77% of the exhibitors in 2001 agreed with this
statement. This percentage lowered to 57% in 2002. This is, among all the questions,
the one that accuses one of the biggest fall: 0.43.
In what concerns the statement about infrastructures, it was verified that 12% and
18% of the exhibitors revealed their dissatisfaction regarding this aspect. On contrary,
67% and 57% of the exhibitors gave a positive opinion relatively to infrastructures.
In relation to the assembly schedule it was noticed that, in 2001 as well as in 2002, for
the great majority of the exhibitors, this is adequate to their needs. Nevertheless, once
again a decrease of the average of 0.26 can be observed.
Regarding the time attributed to the assembly phase, although there has been a slight
regression, the majority of the exhibitors continue to agree with the time foreseen for
the assembly of the fair.
30% (2001) and 20% (2002) of the exhibitors consider that the technical resources
available in the assembly phase corresponded to their expectations.
Relatively to the technical support the panorama was more positive, with 60% and
41% of the exhibitors revealing a positive opinion as considering it efficient, against
2% and 4% (respectively in 2001 and 2002) of the inquired, who regarded the
mentioned support as inefficient. The same happens with the next issue; where 63%
and 41% of the participants consider the technical support enough for the
necessities of the assembly phase, while 2% and 4% disagree with this statement.
When one requests the exhibitors to compare the assembly phase of the present
edition with the one of the previous year, only 32% and 27% of the exhibitors
considered this years’ was better than the previous one.
56
It is remarkable that, in 2002, the percentages of positive responses related to these

four aspects did not exceed 50% and that, both in 2001 and in 2002, the percentage
of those who choose “Undecided” was very high, reaching 54%.
7.1.4 Dismantle
The questions asked to evaluate the satisfaction of the exhibitor towards the
dismantling process are identical to the ones placed for the assembly process.
Therefore, it is curious to verify that the averages of the scores given by the exhibitors
were systematically lower – both in 2001 and in 2002 – for the dismantling process
than for the assembly process.
With regard to the items related to the effectiveness and availability of technical
support during the dismantling phase, in 2001, the average score of the exhibitors is
approximately 0.3 lower.
2002 vs.
2001
The infrastructures (access, parking, etc.) were adequate for the
3.53 3.24 -0.29
dismantle process
The dismantle timetable met my needs 3.41 3.22 -0.19
The time granted for dismantle was suitable for my needs 3.64 3.49 -0.15
The technical resources made available (forklifts, cranes, etc.)
3.44 3.19 -0.25
met my needs
The technical assistance that was made available was effective 3.52 3.38 -0.14
The technical assistance that was made available was sufficient 3.57 3.49 -0.08
In this edition of the exhibition, dismantle ran better than in
3.08 3.16 +0.07
the last one
Average 3.46 3.32 -0.14
Figure 12 - Average scores for the questions regarding section Dismantle
57
In the end, the most critical case is the one related to the schedule of the dismantling
process that gets an average score of approximately 0.4 points lower than the same
question for the assembly process. To strengthen this point are the comments of
some exhibitors, namely those who came from further away from Exponor and who
claim a widening of the schedule of dismantling on the first day, in order to allow
them to start dismantling immediately after the fair shuts down to visitors.
The average related to the subject Dismantle lowered from 3.46 in 2001 to 3.32 in
2002, which constitutes a decrease of 0.14. However, the question “In this edition of
the exhibition, dismantle ran better than in the last one” had a positive evolution
between the two years.
In relation to the dismantling phase, both in 2001 and in 2002, a dissatisfaction of the
exhibitors was noticed within the available infrastructures in the mentioned phase,
given the percentage of negative responses (18% and 25%, respectively). On the
contrary, the percentage of favorable responses was of 65% and 46%, while the
percentage of exhibitors that gave replies of the type “Undecided” in the two years
rose from 14% to 25%. This was the question of the Dismantle group where the
biggest decrease between 2001 and 2001 was registered: 0.29.
Relatively to the dismantling schedule, in 2002 a more favorable panorama of

responses was verified, comparatively to the previous statement, with 53% of the
exhibitors claiming their satisfaction with the dismantling schedule. In 2001 this
value had reached 65%.
Concerning the dismantling period, the panorama of responses was slightly more
positive, with 72% (2001) and 64% (2002) of the exhibitors agreeing with the
statement and 14% and 20% disagreeing.
58
The foreseen technical resources for the dismantling process were considered
enough by 28% of the exhibitors in 2001 and 17% in 2002. Quite on the contrary,
4% and 9% of the exhibitors expressed an unfavorable opinion. Nevertheless, the
average score has degraded between 2001 and 2002 by 0.25. Thus, relatively to this
aspect, the significant percentages of responses of the type “Undecided” and “Not
applicable” is to be noticed since, all together, they exceed the 50%, both in 2001
and in 2002.
The same trend is verified in relation to the last three statements.
42% and 27% of the exhibitors testifies the effectiveness of the technical support,
while only 5% and 7% of the exhibitors expresses the contrary opinion.
In what concerns the technical support available, the panorama of responses is

somehow identical to the previous one, with a slightly higher percentage (46% in
2001 and 30% in 2002) of positive responses according to which the mentioned
support meets the necessities of the dismantling phase. On the contrary, only 5% of
the exhibitors, in both years, disagree with this statement.
According to the opinion of only 23% (2001) and 16% (2002) of the inquired, the
phase of dismantling of the present edition turned out better than the one of the
previous edition. Contrary opinion was mentioned by 11% and 7% of the
participants, who considered that the dismantling process got worse in the year of
the fair it concerns. It should be noticed that this was the only point of the Dismantle
subject, and one of the few in all the exhibitors’ inquiry, that registered a positive
evolution from 2001 to 2002.
59
7.1.5 The Exhibition
In the section of the questionnaire reserved for the questions related to the fair, the
lowest scores in 2001 were for the questions related to the number and profile of
visitors.
The majority of the exhibitors considered that the exhibiting companies present in the
fair are a significant sample of the market. However, the profile of the visitors and,
above all, the number of non-professional visitors are not very valorized by
exhibitors.
In relation to the month of accomplishment of INTERDECORAÇÃO the wide

majority of the exhibitors considered it as the correct date. But 9% and 15% of
exhibitors presented an alternative month for the accomplishment of the fair.
The most mentioned alternative month for the event to take place in 2001 was
February with 4 requests, followed by March and May with 2 and June with 1 request
each.
In 2002, the item in the category The Exhibition that got better score was related to
the venue of Exponor. Regarding the most penalized aspect, it was verified that it
concerns the number of visitors that was below the previously expected.
In 2002, the most mentioned alternative months, regarding the accomplishment of

the event, were March with 4 requests and February and March, with 3 suggestions
each. Other mentioned alternatives were April and the beginning of January with 2.
Finally, October and November deserved 1 suggestion each.
The average of the subject The Exhibition dropped from 3.51, in 2001, to 3.46, in 2002,
which expresses a very slight decrease of 0.05. It is important to point out that the
60
score of four of the thirteen questions was higher in 2002 than in 2001. However,
both in 2001 and in 2002, no average result exceeded 4 points.
2002 vs.
2001
Exponor's venue facilities met my expectations 3.96 3.98 +0.02

The last minute service made available satisfied the requests
3.09 3.50 +0.41
made
The last minute service was carried out within the deadline 3.64 3.00 -0.64
The month in which the exhibition took place was suitable 3.76 3.67 -0.09
The exhibition's timetable was adequate to my needs 3.75 3.69 -0.06
The exhibition's duration was adequate to my needs 4.00 3.90 -0.10

The number of exhibitors at the exhibition corresponded to
3.47 3.30 -0.18
my expectations
The companies present were a representative sample of the
3.57 3.43 -0.14
market
The number of visitors present corresponded to my
2.39 2.67 +0.28
expectations
The visitors' profile corresponded to my expectations 3.00 3.10 +0.10
The exhibition had an appealing image 3.78 3.65 -0.12
The promotion/advertising of the fair was good 3.72 3.60 -0.12
The parallel activities added value/dynamism to the exhibition 3.23 3.18 -0.05
Average 3.51 3.46 -0.05
Figure 13 - Average scores for the questions regarding section The Exhibition
Both inquiries revealed that, in the opinion of about 80% of the exhibitors, the venue
of Exponor corresponded to their expectations.
61
When inquired about the response to last minute orders, 7% of the exhibitors
expressed a positive opinion, registering a big reduction of the discontented exhibitors
from 5%, in 2001, to 2%, in 2002. Actually, this was one of the questions on the
subject The Exhibition, as well as of all the inquiry that registered the highest increase
between 2001 and 2002: 0.41 points.
In relation to the execution of the mentioned services in the established period, the
situation is the opposite of the previous statement, with the agreeing ones falling from
12% (2001) to 7% (2002) and the dissatisfied rising from 5% to 7%. It is curious how
this question shows such a high decrease from 2001 to 2002 – 0.64 points – in
comparison with the previous growth.
While analyzing these two questions we come across a high percentage – always
above 80% – of responses “Not Applicable”. This is due to the fact that many
exhibitors usually do not use this kind of services.
The month of accomplishment of the fair seemed to please 67% and 59% of the
exhibitors. Yet there is a significant percentage of the inquired who do not agree with
it – 12% and 16%.
When questioned about the timetable of the fair, the exhibitors answered in a very
favorable way: 67% and 64% of the exhibitors consider the schedule of
accomplishment of the fair adjusted, against 11% and 14% of the exhibitors that
regard it as inadequate.
In what concerns the duration of the fair, the responses were more positive, with
81% and 73% of the exhibitors revealing an opinion that considers it adequate. In
both inquiries, only 4% of the inquired had a different opinion.
62
The number of exhibitors in the fair did not correspond to the expectations created
by 14% and 20% of the inquired. On the other hand, according to 56% and 48% of
the participants, the number of exhibitors corresponded to their expectations.
Concerning the representativeness of the participant companies it was observed that

for 12% and 18% of the inquired they do not constitute a representative sample of
the market. A contrary opinion is revealed by 58% of the exhibitors who agree with
the statement, in both inquiries.
There were significant percentages of unfavorable responses about the number of

visitors, which for 61% and 50% of the exhibitors was beyond the expected. Contrary
opinion was revealed by 18% and 26%. This was, also, one of the questions that
evolved between 2001 and 2002, rising 0.28 points.
Another equally negative aspect has to do with the profile of the visitor, where the
percentage of favorable responses was of 33% (2001) and 27% (2002), against 35%
and 41% of the exhibitors who were contented, since the mentioned profile
corresponded to their expectations. But, also here, an improvement of 0.10 between
the two inquiries was registered.
On the contrary, the image of the fair was considered appealing by 70% and 61% of
the exhibitors, 5% and 11% of the participants expressed an opposite opinion.
Regarding the promotion of the fair, 70% (2001) and 60% (2002) of the inquired
stated that in their opinion it was efficient. However, 14% and 7% of the
participants disagreed with the way the fair had been promoted. There was a
significant growth of the percentage of responses of the type “Undecided” – from
11% to 27%.
63
9% and 11% of the exhibitors considered that the parallel activities were neither
dynamic nor it improved the event. A contrary opinion was revealed by
approximately 25% of the exhibitors in both inquiries. Once again, it is important to
focus on the high percentage of responses of the type “Undecided” – 51% in 2001
and 42% in 2002.
7.1.6 The Exhibition - Organization
In relation to the organizational aspects the lowest punctuation was given to the
question related to the bars and restaurants. Some comments and suggestions of
exhibitors related to the overload of the space of the fair and with the absence of rest
areas for the visitors have to be registered.
The item concerning the organization with the best average score was, in 2001, the
check-in and, in 2002, the cleanliness of the common areas.
The average concerning the subject The Exhibition – Organization dropped from 3.61 in
2001 to 3.49 in 2002, which represents a fall of 0.12 points, being important that the
score for three of the fourteen questions was higher in 2002. However, it has to be
noticed that, once again, the average punctuations are always inferior to 4 points.
Concerning “Presentation/decoration of the venue”, in both inquiries, about 66% of

the exhibitors revealed their contentment, against less than 10% of the exhibitors that
pronounced a negative opinion regarding this aspect. It is important to point out the
considerable percentage of responses of the type “Undecided”.
The information given by the organization during the fair was evaluated positively
by 74% (2001) and 67% (2002) of the inquired, against about 10% of the exhibitors
who, in both inquiries, attributed a negative mark to it.
64
2002 vs.
2001
The quality of the following was good: presentation /
3.76 3.60 -0.16
decoration of the venue;
- Information; 3.75 3.63 -0.13
- Exhibition catalogue; 3.73 3.39 -0.34
- Parking; 3.78 3.47 -0.31
- Check-in; 3.81 3.46 -0.35
- Cleaning of common areas; 3.56 3.69 +0.13
- Bars and restaurants; 3.00 3.13 +0.13
- Lighting; 3.78 3.66 -0.12
- Signage; 3.59 3.62 +0.03
- Air-conditioning; 3.24 3.22 -0.02
- Reception; 3.71 3.55 -0.16
- ATMs. 3.63 3.55 -0.09
There was a quick response to my complaints 3.51 3.23 -0.29
The services rendered complied with the Application Form 3.70 3.66 -0.04
Average 3.61 3.49 -0.12
Figure 14 - Average scores for the questions regarding section The Exhibition - Organization
70% and 49% of the exhibitors evaluated the catalogue of the fair positively. Contrary
opinion was expressed by 7% and 17%.
In respect of the parking, the percentage of exhibitors that considered that the
parking of Exponor did not meet the demanded quality rose from 5% in 2001 to
18% in 2002. 74% and 57% of the inquired stated a reverse opinion, revealing a
65
positive judgment regarding this aspect. As a consequence, there was a decrease of

the average score of 0.31 points.
When questioned on the quality of the check-in, 74% and 48% of the exhibitors
considered it good, against 7% and 10% of the inquired that did not agree with this
quality.
The cleanliness of the common areas is evaluated positively by almost 70% of the
exhibitors, both in 2001 and in 2002. The number of dissatisfied with this aspect fell
from 12% to 7%, which makes this one of the questions with a positive evolution
between 2001 and 2002.
From the analysis of the responses, the most penalized aspects relate to the bars and
restaurants. Thus, although 40% and 45% of the participants considered the bars
and restaurants good in quality terms, 30% and 23% of the exhibitors have a
contrary opinion, having considered the level of the quality of the bars and
restaurants as low. Of all the evaluated aspects, this was the one that generated
greater dissatisfaction among the exhibitors. Even though it continues to be
negatively assessed, in 2002, a slight improvement of this item was noticed in
relation to the previous year. One should point out the amount of the responses of
the type “Undecided”, which was given in ¼ of the responses.
Both in 2001 and in 2002, the smashing majority of the exhibitors considered the
quality of lighting as good, against less than 10% of the exhibitors who manifested a
contrary opinion.
In relation to the quality of the signage of Exponor, about 65% of the exhibitors
attributed a positive mark to it. About 10% had a negative opinion. Despite the
proximity of the responses, the final average between 2001 and 2002 suffered a
slight improvement, approximately 0.03 points.
66
When questioned about the quality of the air conditioning, in both inquiries, 25% of
the exhibitors had a negative opinion about it. In reverse, 53% and 44% of the
exhibitors revealed their contentment regarding the quality of the air conditioning of
Exponor.
The evaluation by the exhibitors regarding the quality of the reception was favorable.
For 72% and 50% of the exhibitors the reception was satisfactory, against only 11%
and 6% who disagreed with the quality of it.
Relatively to the evaluation of the quality of the item ATM, about 45% of the
exhibitors gave it a positive mark against only 4% (2001) and 6% (2002) with contrary
opinions.
In relation to these four aspects, the significant percentages of responses of the type
“Undecided” has also to be pointed out.
In relation to the question “There was quick response to my complaints”, 35% and
27% of the inquired answered affirmatively, against 7% in 2001 and 13% in 2002 for
whom the process should have been done in a better way. Almost 40% of the
inquired opted for “Not Applicable”, which makes us conclude that they did not
make any claim.
With regard to whether the services provided by Exponor are in agreement with the
Application Form, 58% and 61% of the inquired presented a positive reply. Only 5%
had a contrary opinion and 7% considered that the services were not in accordance
with the Application Form.
67
7.1.7 Overall Evaluation
In terms of global appreciation the question that compared the quality of edition 2001
with edition 2000 was not much valued. This result seems to indicate that, in the
exhibitors’ opinion, the quality of the fair did not show a great deal of progress.
Although a slight improvement can be noticed, this was also the most penalized
question in 2002.
The best average score, concerning the evaluation of the category Overall Evaluation,
both in 2001 and in 2002, regards the participation in the next edition of the fair.
From the global analysis, one can verify that in none of the evaluated items the
average score is either higher than 4 or lower than 3, practically remaining the same in
both years. On average, 37% of the inquired in 2001 and 23% in 2002, chose to reply
“Undecided”.
2002 vs.
2001
I have reached my objectives for this fair 2.86 3.18 +0.32
Overall, Exponor provided a service of excellent quality 3.69 3.46 -0.23
This event was an excellent means of impelling my business 3.81 3.58 -0.23
This year's exhibition was an improvement on the last edition 2.83 3.07 +0.23
I intend to continue participating in this event 3.92 3.81 -0.11
Average 3.44 3.43 -0.01
Figure 15 - Average scores of the questions regarding section Overall Evaluation
In 2002, only 29% of the exhibitors clearly stated to have reached the pre-established
objectives for the fair, a percentage that rises to 49% in 2002. On the contrary, 34%
68
and 29% of the exhibitors claimed to be dissatisfied with the fact of not having
reached their objectives. Therefore there has been an improvement of 0.32 points
between both inquiries.
In relation to the quality of the service provided by Exponor, in 2001 there was a
great dispersion of opinions (values 2, 3 and 4 got significantly the same percentage),
while in 2002 only 11% of the exhibitors classified the provided services as bad,
against 55% who agreed with the good quality of this service.
Relatively to the added value brought by the participation in the fair, 65% of the
2001 and 2002 exhibitors agreed that the fair was an excellent way of stimulating
their businesses. Of all the evaluated aspects in the Overall Evaluation this was the one
that most pleased the exhibitors.
Having been requested to compare the last two editions of the fair, only 23% (2001)
and 31% (2002) of the exhibitors considered this year’s edition to be better than the
previous one. There were approximately 33% and 21% of the exhibitors with the
opinion that the fair got worse in this last year. It is important to point out the
significant percentage of responses of the type “Undecided” on this statement.
Analyzing the responses to the question “I intend to continue participating in this

event”, a very positive picture arose, namely with the percentage of exhibitors who
intended to continue to participate in the event – superior to 70% in both years –,
exceeding by far the percentage of exhibitors who do not to intend to come back to
participate, which represents 7%.
69
7.1.8 Objectives for Participation
In this question the exhibitors were asked to order the reasons that brought them to
this exhibition in terms of their relative importance. For an easier comparison of the
results, the 1-to-7 scale was transposed into a 1-to-5 scale.
Both in 2001 and in 2002, “To keep in touch with customers/distributors” and “To
look for new customers/distributors” were the most mentioned aspects by the
exhibitors for their participation in INTERDECORAÇÃO.
In the same way, “A closer look at the competition” was referred as the least
important item.
2002 vs.
2001
Please number from most important to least important the
3.52 2.80 -0.72
main reasons that brought you to this exhibition: prestige;
- To keep in touch with customers / distributors; 4.62 3.19 -1.43
- To look for new customers / distributors; 4.52 3.26 -1.27
- To exchange information with the competition; 2.46 2.79 +0.32
- A closer look at the competition; 2.65 2.56 -0.09
- To introduce new products; 4.24 3.08 -1.16
- To discover the latest novelties / trends of the market. 2.94 2.75 -0.20
Figure 16 - Average scores of the questions regarding section Objectives for Participation (score
converted to the 1-to-5 scale)
70
7.1.9 Deciding Factor for Participation
This question was similar to the previous one, but now the objective was to
establish a hierarchy in the factors that took the exhibitor to decide to participate in
INTERDECORAÇÃO. The scale was also here adjusted to the 1-to-5 scale.
In both years, “The previous edition of the exhibition” and “The standard of the
visitors” were the factors that had more weight in the decision of the exhibitors. In
2002 there was a valuation of the questions “Contact from Exponor members of
staff” and “The promotional campaign”.
2002 vs.
2001
factors that led you to participate in this exhibition: Contact 2.33 2.79 +0.46
from Exponor members of staff;
- The previous edition of the exhibition; 4.08 3.24 -0.84
- The standard of the visitors; 3.75 3.46 -0.29
- The promotional campaign. 2.66 3.01 +0.34
Figure 17 - Average scores of the questions regarding section Deciding Factor For Participation
(score converted to the 1-to-5 scale)
7.1.10 Exhibition Advertising
In 2001, the promotion in the previous edition of the fair, the letter sent by Exponor
and the campaigns on the radio were the main ways of making the information reach
the exhibitors.
71
On the other hand, in 2002, the most referred ways were also the previous fair and
campaigns on the radio, followed by the contact of Exponor’s staff members and the
letter.
2002 vs.
2001
I became aware that this exhibition was taking place by means
15.4% 16.8% +1.4%
of: Radio;
- Television; 11.4% 8.4% -3.0%
- Specialized Press; 5.4% 3.4% -2.0%
- Newspapers; 9.4% 9.2% -0.2%
- Facsimile; 4.7% 3.4% -1.3%
- Internet; 1.3% 3.4% +2.0%
- Letter; 16.8% 16.0% -0.8%
- Previous Edition; 23.5% 21.8% -1.6%
- E-mail; 0.7% 0.8% +0.1%
- Contact by an Exponor staff member; 10.7% 16.0% +5.3%
- Billboards; 0.7% 0.8% +0.1%
Figure 18 – Average percentages of the questions regarding section Exhibition Advertising
In both cases, the email and the billboards were barely valued by the exhibitors.
72
7.2. Customer Satisfaction Assessment Analysis – Visitors
7.2.1 Characterization of the Visitor
The first set of questions were intended to characterize the visitor of the 2001 and
2002 editions of the INTERDECORAÇÃO fair, according to the type of visitors
(professional of the sector in exhibition or from another sector) and with their
participation in the various editions of this exhibition.
7.2.1.1 Participation
In 2001, all the visitors who answered this question had already visited previous
editions of INTERDECORAÇÃO trade fair.
2001 2002
Visitor in previous editions 100% 71%
1st participation 0% 29%
Figure 19 - Division habitual visitors / new visitors
The table shows that, in 2002, 71% of the visitors who answered this questionnaire
had already visited the edition of the year 2000 of INTERDECORAÇÃO.
7.2.1.2 Type of Visitor

In 2001, all the visitors who had returned the filled questionnaire claimed to be
professional of the sector to which INTERDECORAÇÃO is directed.
24% of the visitors present in the 2002 edition said not to be professional of the
sector. The mentioned visitors belonged to the following sectors: textiles, advertising
photography, textile drawing and jacquard.
73
7.2.2 Contact with Exponor
The analysis of the responses shows quite a positive picture of responses, once there
are such high percentages of favorable answers and a very low amount of negative
ones in all the studied aspects.
Among the questions related to the contacts established with Exponor, in 2001 the
main focus was on the high scores given to the friendliness of the Exponor’s staff.
2002 vs.
2001
Exponor's staff whom I spoke to before the exhibition was
4.38 4.56 +0.19
friendly and helpful
Contacting Exponor for information was easy 3.86 4.47 +0.61
The information received by contacting Exponor was
4.00 4.41 +0.41
elucidatory
It was easy to obtain information about the exhibition 4.13 4.24 +0.11
The documentation supplied was elucidatory 3.75 4.24 +0.49
Average 4.03 4.38 +0.35
Figure 20 – Average score for the questions regarding section Contact with Exponor
In 2002, this aspect deserved, in general, higher scores from the visitors’ perspective,
which led to average scores above 4 points, thus justifying a rise of 0.35 points in the
average between both years.
The analysis of the responses from 2002 and 2001 shows us that the majority of the
visitors – 88% – see the Exponor’s staff as friendly and helpful. Among all the
evaluated aspects concerning the contact with Exponor this was the one that most
pleased the visitors, therefore being the item with the highest percentage of positive
responses (“Strongly Agree”).
74
Regarding the contact with Exponor with the purpose of getting information, the
percentage of the visitors who considered this contact easy went up from 50% in
2001 to 94% in 2002, which explains an increase of 0.61 in the average score.
In relation to the information given by Exponor, the responses were identical to the
previous item, with the amount of visitors considering the referred information as
enlightening rising from 63% (2001) to 94% (2002), an increase of 0.41 points.
Nevertheless, when questioned on the easiness in getting information about the fair,
the percentage of favorable responses decreased from 88% to 77%. On the contrary,
the percentage of the ones who decided to go for “Undecided” rose from 3% to
24%.
As for the supplied documentation, the majority of the visitors – 63% and 88% –
considered it elucidative. It is important to refer that this was the only aspect that
received a negative score from a small percentage of visitors in 2002.
7.2.3 The Exhibition
Both in 2001 and in 2002, the friendliness of Exponor’s staff, as well as the venue,
have to be stressed out as positive once again. Less valued was the interest of the fair
and the improvements in relation to the previous edition.
In relation to the two inquiries, the average rose from 3.66 to 3.88, which expresses
an improvement of 0.22 between one year and the other. The absence of aspects with
average scores below 3 points should also be enhanced.
In what concerns the friendliness of the Exponor’s staff, in 2002 88% of the visitors
considered that the people with whom they contacted were kind and helpful, against
only 6% who disagreed with this statement. In the previous year, the result had been
more resounding: 100% had agreed!
75
2002 vs.
2001
The staff whom I spoke to at the exhibition was friendly and
4.38 4.41 +0.04
helpful
Exponor'S venue was pleasant 4.38 4.41 +0.04
Access to the exhibition was quick 3.63 4.29 +0.67
The exhibition's calendar was adequate 4.13 3.82 -0.30
The month in which the exhibition took place was suitable 3.86 3.88 +0.03
The number of exhibitors at the exhibition corresponded to
3.50 3.88 +0.38
my expectations
The standard of the exhibitors present corresponded to my
3.13 3.65 +0.52
expectations
This year's edition of this fair was very interesting 3.00 3.56 +0.56
This year's edition improved substantially comparatively to the
3.00 3.27 +0.27
last one
The parallel activities were yet another reason for visiting the
3.43 3.53 +0.10
exhibition
Average 3.66 3.88 +0.22
Figure 21 – Average scores for the questions regarding section The Exhibition
The facilities of Exponor were evaluated very positively, since the visitors considered
them pleasant, both in 2001 and in 2002.
Regarding the access to the exhibition, 75% (2001) and 88% (2002) of the visitors
considered that the access was fast, while the remaining 25% and 12% replied as
“Undecided”.
One should stress the absence of negative responses in these two last aspects.
When questioned if the calendar of the fair was the most adequate one, in 2001 88%
agreed, a percentage that dropped to 65% of the visitors in the following year.
76
When questioned about the month of realization of the fair, 63% and 71% of the
visitors considered that this was the most suitable one, against 13% and 6% of the
visitors who disagreed with the statement. There was a significant percentage of
responses of the type “Undecided”.
25% and 18% of the visitors revealed a negative opinion relatively to the number of
exhibitors in the fair. A contrary opinion was stated by 63% and 77%, for whom the
number of exhibitors corresponded to their expectations.
In relation to the quality of the present exhibitors, the results are in some way
unfavorable in 2001 with only 38% of the visitors having a clearly positive opinion.
This percentage rises astonishingly to 71% in 2002, justifying a rise of 0.52 points.
In what concerns the interest created by this year’s edition of the fair, in 2001 only
13% revealed a positive opinion and half of them chose “Undecided”. On the
contrary, in 2002, 59% are favorable and the undecided lowered to 18%.
Although the results of 2002 are slightly better than the ones of 2001, the differences
are not very significant. The responses are distributed, more or less, equally between
the favorable responses, the undecided and the unfavorable ones. This leads us to the
conclusion that no improvement is perceptible from edition to edition.
Regarding the parallel activities, 50% and 64% of the visitors considered these
represent an added value for the exhibition, against 13% and 18% with an
unfavorable opinion.
77
7.2.4 The Exhibition - Organization
As for the visitor satisfaction with the organization, in 2001 and 2002 the lowest
average values were observed in relation to parking and bars and restaurants. In the
other hand, cleanliness and presentation/decoration of the venue attained an average
score above 4.
The average score of this topic decreased very slightly (0.03) from 3.86 in 2001 to 3.83
in 2002. However, the analysis of the responses shows that, in the average, the
percentage of favorable opinions widely exceeded 50%.
Regarding the presentation/decoration of the venue, 100% (2001) and 94% (2002) of
the visitors revealed a positive opinion. It is important to point out the absence of
unfavorable responses in both years.
The aspect that most pleased the visitors in 2002, among all the related to the
organization, regards the cleanliness of the fair, in which the totality of the inquired
visitors expressed a positive opinion. In 2001 only 88% had had the same opinion. To
notice is the absence of negative responses relatively to this aspect.
The information was evaluated positively by 75% and 82% of the visitors, while in
2002, 6% of the visitors revealed to be dissatisfied with the quality and accuracy of the
provided information. In 2001 there were no negative responses, but ¼ of the visitors
had opted for “Undecided”.
In 2001, 75% and in 2002, 64% of the visitors considered that the signage presented
the adequate quality. On the contrary, in 2002, 12% of the visitors were dissatisfied
with this matter. Once again there were no unfavorable responses in 2001, but ¼ of
the inquired answered “Undecided”.
78
2002 vs.
2001
The quality of the following was good: presentation /
4.38 4.29 -0.08
decoration of the venue;
- Cleaning; 4.25 4.47 +0.22
- Information; 4.00 4.12 +0.12
- Signage; 4.13 3.65 -0.48
- Air-conditioning; 3.88 3.71 -0.17
- Reception; 4.25 3.94 -0.31
- Check-in; 4.00 3.94 -0.06
- Bars and restaurants; 3.13 2.94 -0.18
- Security; 4.00 3.75 -0.25
- Parking; 2.88 3.59 +0.71
- ATMs; 3.63 3.64 +0.01
Average 3.86 3.83 -0.03
Figure 22 - Average scores for the question regarding section The Exhibition - Organization
When questioned on the quality of air-conditioning, 13% and 18% of the visitors had
a negative opinion about this aspect, against 63% and 59% of the visitors who had
answered favorably concerning the quality of the air conditioning.
The evaluation regarding the quality of the reception was favorable for 75% and 71%
of the visitors, while the remaining visitors gave a reply of the type “Undecided”.
When questioned on the quality of the check-in, 63% and 71% of the visitors stated a
positive opinion about this aspect.
79
In what concerns the quality of the bars and restaurants, we come across a less
positive picture where only 38% and 24% of the participants expressed a positive
opinion. 25% and 30% of the participants had an opposite opinion, in the sense that
they considered the quality level of the bars and restaurants low. We should
emphasize the very high percentage of responses of the type “Undecided” – 38% and
46%. This was the most punished aspect by the inquired in 2002 and the second one
in 2001.
When questioned about the quality of the security, 75% and 59% of the visitors
manifest a positive reaction.
Parking constituted the most distressing item in 2001, with ¼ of the responses in
“Undecided” and the remaining distributed between positive and negative replies. In
2002 the situation was slightly better with 58% of the visitors agreeing with its quality
and 24% disagreeing with it.
Regarding the evaluation of the quality of item ATM, 63% and 47% of the visitors
attributed a positive mark to it, while 25% and 35% gave responses of the type
“Undecided”.
7.2.5 Overall Evaluation
In the global appreciation, the item with the highest average score related to the
intention of coming back to visit the exhibition, with 4.71 (2001) and 4.59 (2002)
points.
On the contrary, the item with the lowest average score, in 2001, was connected to
the accomplishment of the objectives with 3.71 and, in 2002, with the service
provided by Exponor, in spite of this aspect having reached an average of 4 points.
The total average went up 0.15 points, from 4.10 in 2001 to 4.25 in 2002.
80
2002 vs.
2001
I have reached my objectives for this fair 3.71 4.06 +0.34
Overall, Exponor provided a service of excellent quality 4.13 4.00 -0.13

This event was an excellent way of discovering the latest
4.13 4.35 +0.23
novelties / trends of the market
I intend to repeat my visit to this exhibition 4.38 4.59 +0.21
Average 4.10 4.25 +0.15
Figure 23 – Average scores for the questions regarding section Overall Evaluation
As for the first question, 63% and 82% of the visitors considered that the fair
corresponded to the predetermined objectives, against 13% and 6%, who said that
they did not achieve the objectives pre-established for this exhibition. This was the
worst evaluated item in 2001.
When questioned on Exponor’s service, both in 2001 and in 2002, 88% of the
inquired revealed an agreeing opinion with the statement presented to them. Only
about 12% of the visitors had a contrary opinion disagreeing with the quality of the
service. It is important to notice that this was the worst assessed item in 2002.
The visitors answered in a positive way regarding the added value brought by the
participation in the fair. 88% and 94% of the visitors agreed that the fair was excellent
this event was an outstanding means of discovering the latest novelties / trends of the
market. An opposite opinion towards this statement was expressed by 6% of the
inquired in 2002. In 2001 no negative opinions were registered.
Once again the majority of the participants, 100% (2001) and 94% (2002), claimed to
have the intention of visiting the exhibition in the following year. This was the aspect
81
that got the highest percentage of favorable responses, as much in 2001 as in 2002, of
all the evaluated items relatively to the global appreciation.
7.2.6 Objectives of the Visit
2002 vs.
2001
main reasons that brought you to this exhibition: to keep in 3.48 2.86 -0.63
touch with suppliers;
- To look for new suppliers; 4.46 3.00 -1.46
- To evaluate the offer; 3.84 2.81 -1.03
- To discover the latest novelties/trends of the market; 3.84 2.63 -1.21
- To exchange information; 1.88 3.13 +1.25
- To order; 2.86 3.39 +0.54
- To sell. 0.89 3.17 +2.28
Figure 24 – Average scores for the questions regarding section Objectives of the Visit (score
converted to the 1-to-5 scale)
In this question the visitor was asked to number each objective in accordance with its
relative importance. To make the comparisons easier these scores were converted into
a 1 to 5 scale, being 1 the less important item and 5 the most important one.
In 2001, “To look for new suppliers” e “To discover the latest novelties/trends of the
sector” were the most mentioned reasons by the visitors of INTERDECORAÇÃO.
Curiously, the main objectives of the visit indicated by the visitors of 2002 were
significantly different. “To order”, “To sell” and “To promote the interchange of
information” were the most mentioned aspects.
82
7.2.7 Purchase Volume
At this point, it was intended to select the amount of purchases that the visitor would
have made during the exhibition.
Purchase Volume 2001 2002
< = € 500 12% 27%
€ 500 - 2,500 14% 39%
€ 2,500 - 12,500 57% 21%
€ 12,500 - 37,500 17% 13%
> € 37,500 0% 0%
Figure 25 - Volume of purchases during the exhibition
Through the analysis of the responses we can conclude that the amount of purchases
in 2002 was inferior to the one in 2001, while acquisitions of small quantities
prevailed.
7.2.8 Deciding Factor for Participation
2002 vs.
2001
factors that led you to participate in this exhibition: Contact 2.71 3.30 +0.60
from Exponor members of staff;
- The previous edition of the exhibition; 4.16 2.95 -1.22
- The standard of the exhibitors; 3.13 3.66 +0.54
- The promotional campaign. 3.75 2.86 -0.89
Figure 26 – Average scores for the questions regarding section Deciding Factors for Participation
(score converted to the 1-to-5 scale)
83
From the analysis of the 2001 results it is possible to say that the most efficient way of
advertising INTERDECORAÇÃO ended up being the fair itself. The advertising
campaign and the level of the exhibitors came right after in the visitors’ statements.
In reverse, in 2002, the biggest focus was for the standard of the exhibitors and
contact from Exponor members of staff.
7.1.10 Exhibition Advertising
In 2001, the previous edition of the fair and the letter sent by Exponor were the two
par excellence ways that most effectively promoted the fair to visitors. At the end of the
table there are television, fax, Internet, e-mail and billboards.
2002 vs.
2001
I became aware that this exhibition was taking place by means
7.7% 6.4% -1.3%
of: Radio;
- Television; 0% 8.5% +8.5%
- Specialized Press; 7.7% 4.3% -3.4%
- Newspapers; 7.7% 12.8% +5.1%
- Facsimile; 0% 6.4% +6.4%
- Internet; 0% 0% 0%
- Letter; 30.8% 27.7% -3.1%
- Previous Edition; 30.8% 12.8% -18.0%
- E-mail; 0% 2.1% +2.1%
- Contact by an Exponor staff member; 15.4% 19.1% +3.8%
- Billboards; 0% 0% 0%
Figure 27 – Average percentages for the questions regarding section Exhibition Advertising
84
In 2002 there was a bigger dispersion of the responses. The letter came first of all,
followed by the contact of an Exponor staff member. At the end of the list of
preferences the Internet and the billboards appeared.
85
86
Chapter 8
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1 Exhibitor Satisfaction
8.1.1 Comparison of the Global Averages
Although a generalized decrease in the score between 2001 and 2001 can be noticed,
the relative importance of each section remains.
5
2001
2002
4,5
3,5
2,5
1,5
1
Contact with Assembly Dismantle The Exhibition The Exhibition - Overall
EXPONOR Organization Evaluation
Figure 28 - Exhibitors: comparison of global averages of each section in 2001 and 2002
In terms of a global appreciation the section with highest score is the one referring to
the contact with the organization. The friendliness of the staff and the high level of
87
satisfaction from the easiness and effectiveness of contacts established with Exponor
and from the visit of its sales representatives have contributed to this result.
On the other hand, the most penalized aspect by the exhibitors is related with
dismantle.
It is important to mention that none of the evaluated aspects achieved an average

score higher than 4 points or lower than 3 points.
8.1.2 Highlights and Areas for Improvement
Points Statement Section
4.33 Exponor's staff was friendly and helpful Contact with Exponor
The visit of the Exponor staff member was
4.32 Contact with Exponor
worthwhile
The space granted corresponded to what had been
agreed
Contact with Exponor to date has been
straightforward
The documentation supplied was elucidatory with
regard to organizational aspects
The information to date through contacting
Exponor has been elucidatory
Members of staff providing technical services were
4.02 Assembly
4.00 The exhibition's duration was adequate to my needs The Exhibition
3.96 Exponor's venue facilities met my expectations The Exhibition
3.92 I intend to continue participating in this event Overall Evaluation
Figure 29 – Exhibitors: highlights in 2001
88
The previous panorama is confirmed when we make a detailed analysis of better and
worse classified statements. The items related to Contact with Exponor reach the top
positions in both years.
It is curious to verify that despite section Overall Evaluation having a poor global mark,
the statement “I intend to continue participating in this event” appears integrated in
the top 10, both in 2001 and in 2002.
Contact with Exponor to date has been

straightforward
The visit of the Exponor staff member was
worthwhile
The information to date through contacting
Exponor has been elucidatory
4.07 Exponor's staff was friendly and helpful Contact with Exponor
The space granted corresponded to what had been
agreed
3.98 Exponor's venue facilities met my expectations The Exhibition
The documentation supplied was elucidatory with
regard to organizational aspects
3.90 The exhibition's duration was adequate to my needs The Exhibition
3.81 I intend to continue participating in this event Overall Evaluation

The Exhibition -
3.69 Cleaning of common areas
Organization
Figure 30 – Exhibitors: highlights in 2002
In relation to the weak points there is also a certain similarity between the two years.
Statements of the sections The Exhibition, Overall Evaluation and Dismantle constitute
the almost totality of this “bottom 10”.
89

2.39 The Exhibition
expectations
This year's exhibition was an improvement on the
2.83 Overall Evaluation
last edition
2.86 I have reached my objectives for this fair Overall Evaluation
The visitors' profile corresponded to my
3.00 The Exhibition
expectations
The Exhibition -
3.00 Bars and restaurants
Organization
In this edition of the exhibition, dismantle ran better
3.08 Dismantle
than in the last one
The last minute service made available satisfied the
3.09 The Exhibition
requests made
The parallel activities added value/dynamism to the
3.23 The Exhibition
exhibition
The Exhibition -
3.24 Air-conditioning
Organization
3.41 The dismantle timetable met my needs Dismantle
Figure 31 – Exhibitors: areas for improvement in 2001
In a certain way the results seem to be contradictory. On the one hand, the exhibitors
explicitly state – both in 2001 and in 2002 – that the number of visitors is beyond
their expectations, that there were no improvements in relation to the previous
edition and that they didn’t accomplish their predetermined objectives. On the other
hand, however, they declare that they intend to continue participating in this event! It
seems, therefore, that there has to be another reason that justifies this attitude. We
will find it in the analysis of the following correlations.
90

2.67 The Exhibition
expectations
The last minute service was carried out within the
3.00 The Exhibition
deadline
This year's exhibition was an improvement on the
last edition
The visitors' profile corresponded to my
3.10 The Exhibition
expectations
The Exhibition -
Organization
In this edition of the exhibition, dismantle ran better
3.16 Dismantle
than in the last one
The parallel activities added value/dynamism to the
3.18 The Exhibition
exhibition
3.18 I have reached my objectives for this fair Overall Evaluation
The technical resources made available (forklifts,
3.19 Dismantle
cranes, etc.) met my needs
3.22 The dismantle timetable met my needs Dismantle
8.1.3 Analysis of correlations
The analysis of correlations was carried through with the aim of determining which of
the factors present a stronger relation with each one of the aspects of the global
evaluation and, therefore, may have greater weight in the satisfaction of the exhibitor.
Thus, the analysis of the 2001 inquiries led to the conclusion that the question related
to the achievement of the objectives presents a correlation value of approximately
70% with the question related to the number of exhibitors. Right afterwards the entry
concerning the profile of the visitor reaches 65%.
91
I have reached my objectives for this fair
The number of exhibitors at the exhibition corresponded to my expectations
The visitor’s profile corresponded to my expectations
Figure 33 – Correlations with the question achievement of objectives in 2001
The analysis of the correlation also points out a very strong relation between the
intention to come back and participate in the following edition of the exhibition and
the image of the fair – about 66%. The intention to continue participating also shows
a strong correlation with the question related to the quality of the service provided by
Exponor and with the opinion of the exhibitor about the fair as an excellent way of
stimulating the business.
I intend to continue participating in this event
The exhibition had an appealing image
Overall, Exponor provided a service of excellent quality
This event was an excellent means of impelling my business
Figure 34 – Correlations with the question intention to continue participating in 2001
The number of visitors present corresponded to my expectations
The visitor’s profile corresponded to my expectations
Figure 35 – Correlations with the question achievement of objectives in 2002
92
On the other hand, the analysis of the 2002 inquiry revealed that the achievement of
the objectives for the fair, represents a higher than 70% correlation with the number
and profile of the visitors in the fair.
This fair is an excellent way of stimulating the business, due to the excellent quality of
the provided services by Exponor.
Figure 36 – Correlations with the question fair as an excellent means of impelling business
Relating to the intention of coming back to participate in INTERDECORAÇÃO, the

aspect with the biggest correlation is the fact that the exhibitor sees the fair as a way
of stimulating his business.
I intend to continue participating in this event
Figure 37 – Correlations with the question intention to continue participating in 2002
Therefore, the question raised in the previous issue on the true motivations of the
exhibitors who insist on affirming that they want to continue to participate in
INTERDECORAÇÃO, seems to be overall related to these factors and not with any
others.
The remaining aspects that were studied did not present any correlation.
93
8.2 Visitor Satisfaction
8.2.1 Comparison of the Global Averages
Opposed to what happened in the inquiry to the exhibitors, in 2002 the visitors made
a globally more favourable appreciation than in 2001.In fact, from the four topics
included, three of them registered a positive evolution between the two years and only
one of them suffered a very slight regression.
5,00
2001
4,50 2002
4,00
3,50
3,00
2,50
2,00
1,50
1,00
Contact with EXPONOR The Exhibition The Exhibition - Overall Evaluation
Organization
Figure 38 – Visitors: comparison of global averages of each section in 2001 and 2002
In terms of global appreciation, Contact with Exponor and Overall Evaluation achieved a
higher score, while section The Exhibition and The Exhibition – Organization were less
valued.
94
It is important to refer that none of the evaluated aspects got an average score higher
than 4.5 or lower than 3.5 points.
8.2.2 Highlights and Areas for Improvements
It is remarkable that, unlike what concerns the exhibitors, in the visitors’ top there are
statements proceeding from the four groups with a representation of identical
importance. In 2001 the number of the referred statements had to be widened from
ten to twelve because there was a tie in five of the statements.
Exponor's staff whom I spoke to before the

exhibition was friendly and helpful
The staff whom I spoke to at the exhibition was
4.38 The Exhibition
4.38 Exponor's venue was pleasant The Exhibition
The Exhibition -
4.38 Presentation / decoration of the venue
Organization
4.38 I intend to repeat my visit to this exhibition Overall Evaluation
The Exhibition -
4.25 Cleaning
Organization
The Exhibition -
4.25 Reception
Organization
It was easy to obtain information about the
exhibition
4.13 The exhibition's calendar was adequate The Exhibition
The Exhibition -
4.13 Signage
Organization
Overall, Exponor provided a service of excellent
quality
This event was an excellent means of discovering the
latest novelties / trends of the market
Figure 39 – Visitors: highlights in 2001
95
It should be stressed that the statement “Exponor's staff whom I spoke to before the
exhibition was friendly and helpful”, first in 2001, dropped to second in 2002, yielding
its position to “I intend to repeat my visit to this exhibition”, which ascended from
fifth place.
4.59 I intend to repeat my visit to this exhibition Overall Evaluation

Exponor's staff whom I spoke to before the
exhibition was friendly and helpful
4.47 Contacting Exponor for information was easy Contact with Exponor
The Exhibition -
4.47 Cleaning
Organization
The information received by contacting Exponor
was elucidatory
The staff whom I spoke to at the exhibition was
4.41 The Exhibition
4.41 Exponor's venue was pleasant The Exhibition
This event was an excellent means of discovering the
latest novelties / trends of the market
4.29 Access to the exhibition was quick The Exhibition
The Exhibition -
4.29 Presentation / decoration of the venue
Organization
Figure 40 – Visitors: highlights in 2002
In relation to the weaker points there is also a certain stability between the two years.
Statements of the themes The Exhibition and The Exhibition - Organization constitute
almost the totality of the “bottom 10”. There is no statement on the topic Contact with
Exponor.
96
The Exhibition -
2.88 Parking
Organization
3.00 This year’s edition of this fair was very interesting The Exhibition
This year’s edition improved substantially
3.00 The Exhibition
comparatively to the last one
The standard of the exhibitors present corresponded
3.13 The Exhibition
to my expectations
The Exhibition -
Organization
The parallel activities were yet another reason for
3.43 The Exhibition
visiting the exhibition
The number of exhibitors at the exhibition
3.50 The Exhibition
corresponded to my expectations
3.63 Access to the exhibition was quick The Exhibition
The Exhibition -
3.63 ATMs
Organization
The Exhibition -
Organization
This year’s edition improved substantially
3.27 The Exhibition
comparatively to the last one
The parallel activities were yet another reason for
3.53 The Exhibition
visiting the exhibition
3.56 This year’s edition of this fair was very interesting The Exhibition
The Exhibition -
3.59 Parking
Organization
The Exhibition -
3.64 ATMs
Organization
The standard of the exhibitors present corresponded
3.65 The Exhibition
to my expectations
The Exhibition -
3.65 Signage
Organization
The Exhibition -
3.71 Air-conditioning
Organization
97
Between both years a change between the first and fifth place occurred. In 2001 the
statement that received the lowest score in the inquiry to the visitors, “Parking”,
appears in the following year in fifth, while “Bars and Restaurants”, fifth worst in
2001, moves to the worst of all in 2002.
8.2.3 Analysis of correlations
Alike the procedure followed in relation to the exhibitors, it was intended to

determine which factors establish a stronger relation with each one of the global
evaluation aspects and that, therefore, may have greater weight in the satisfaction of
the visitor.
This event was an excellent means of discovering the latest novelties / trends of the market
I intend to repeat my visit to this exhibition
The standard of the exhibitors present corresponded to my expectations
Figure 43 – Correlations with the question achievement of objectives
The achievement of the objectives for the fair presents a correlation, higher than
80%, with the service of excellent quality provided by Exponor, with an excellent way
of discovering the latest novelties/trends of the market and with the number of
exhibitors present in the fair.
98
It was easy to obtain information about the exhibition
Figure 44 – Correlations with the question intention to continue visiting
With regard to the intention of coming back to visit INTERDECORAÇÃO, the

aspect with the highest correlation is the fact that the visitor sees the fair as a way of
discovering the latest novelties/trends of the market.
This event was an excellent means of discovering the latest novelties / trends of the
market
Figure 45 – Correlations with the question fair as an excellent means of discovering what’s new
in the market
This fair is an excellent way of discovering the latest novelties/trends of the market
due to the number of exhibitors present in the fair. Consequently, visitors reach their
objectives more easily and therefore intend to continue visiting the exhibition.
99
The standard of the exhibitors present corresponded to my expectations
Figure 46 – Correlations with the question Exponor provides an excellent service
In what concerns the excellent quality of the services provided by Exponor, the
aspect with the highest correlation is the fact that the visitor fulfilled his objectives.
In relation to the remaining aspects studied there was an absence of correlations.
8.3 Global Appreciation and Recommendations
Through the analysis of the opinion of 138 customers of INTERDECORAÇÃO we

can draw some conclusions:
1. The friendliness and attention of the staff, as well as the easiness of contact
and access to information and the generally good quality of the facilities seem
to constitute unquestionable characteristics of Exponor, recognized by
exhibitors and visitors alike. Both are unconditional in stating their intention
to attend future editions of this fair.
100
2. Moreover, exhibitors also prize the visit of Exponor’s sales representative, the
scrupulous fulfillment of the contract concerning the rented space, the clarity
of the written documentation and the right duration of the event.
3. The visitors value the presentation, decoration and cleanliness of the venue
and the performance of the reception. The value of the fair as a way of
discovering the latest developments and trends of the market, the ideal time
of the year for the accomplishment of the fair, along with the clarity of the
information produced by Exponor and the excellent quality of the provided
services, constitute other aspects particularly underlined by visitors.
4. On the contrary, the exhibitors reveal their dissatisfaction towards the

number and profile of the visitors and the visitors say exactly the same about
the exhibitors. Both deny having noticed any improvements in relation to the
previous edition of the fair and admit not to have reached their goals for this
fair. Bars and restaurants, air-conditioning and the weak program of parallel
activities are other pointed aspects.
5. Exhibitors also show themselves unsatisfied with the dismantle and point out
problems concerning the technical services in general and the last minute
ones in particular.
6. Visitors’ dissatisfaction turns towards the generally weak interest of the fair,
the slow access to it, the inadequate signage, the parking, the functioning of
the ATMs and the behavior of the security personnel.
Based on this picture of reality, we can conclude that the satisfaction of the Exponor
customers is on average high and that, considering both their past behavior and their
expressed intention to return to the fair, the customers’ loyalty seems to be
guaranteed.
101
However, some aspects deserved a less positive note, and consequently it is

recommendable for Exponor to take the following measures so as to improve the
satisfaction of its customers:
1. To increase the number of leading companies in the fair – Visitors

mostly criticized the number of exhibitors and their profile. Exponor must
focus its commercial attention in order to attract the main companies of the
decoration sector, possibly offering them highly advantageous conditions.
The presence of this type of companies in INTERDECORAÇÃO will not
only be attractive for the visitors, but it will also work as a magnet for minor
companies to enroll in the fair, by imitating the leaders.
2. To increase the number of visitors with great purchasing power in the

sector – the exhibitors mainly criticized the number of visitors and their
profile. Exponor must become involved in attracting big international
purchasers to INTERDECORAÇÃO, offering them trips, accommodation
and other privileges in order to guarantee their presence.
3. To intensify the perception of improvements from one edition to the

other – The fact that a significant part of customers recognize no
improvements in relation to the previous edition of the fair is much more
related to their perception than with reality itself. Therefore, all
communication programs of INTERDECORAÇÃO must emphasize the
developments the new edition will present, as well as the improvements
operated since the last fair took place.
4. To help exhibitors and visitors achieve their objectives – Exponor can

design training courses directed to exhibitors and visitors on how to take
advantage of their participation in fairs. In Portugal the participation in fairs is
not usually complemented by any particular marketing effort by the exhibiting
102
companies. Pre-show promotion and the follow-up of sales leads are two
areas where small improvements could be turned into high profits for the
companies.
5. To improve the service of bars, restaurants and security – Being sub-

contracted areas, Exponor will have to work with their concessionaires in
order to take actions that can be turned into improvements, namely on the
perceived image of bars, restaurants and security.
6. To improve the program of parallel activities – Exponor should get

assistance from companies which know the market very well, possibly
specialized magazines of the sector, delegating on them the definition,
development and implementation of seminaries and conferences that may
occur during INTERDECORAÇÃO.
7. To improve dismantle – It is seen as an area of great dissatisfaction. Further

detailed investigation is required in order to determine the true reasons
behind this dissatisfaction. However, if companies were allowed to start
dismantle immediately after the closing of the fair and to extend the dismantle
time, there could be an immediate improvement on the satisfaction of the
exhibitors.
8. To improve technical services, particularly last minute services –

Creation of a specific counter for receiving requests for technical services in
the center of the fair as well as increasing the number of employees at peak
moments.
9. To reduce the time of access to the fair – Investing more in the pre-
registration of visitors so they can enter the fair directly; placing employees
103
next to the entrances of the buildings to give information and provide fast
guiding of the visitors to the entrances of the fair.
10. To improve signage – Great part of the disappointment expressed in this

matter is related to the inadequate signage of expressways and highways
around Porto, which makes the task of discovering Exponor particularly
difficult to people from out-of-town.
11. To improve the use of the parking lots – The parking lots available in the
venue of Exponor is exiguous for the amount of exhibitors and visitors it
receives. Even though, the existence of a team of ushers to direct the cars to
the free places could help.
12. To improve the functioning of the ATMs – They depend on banks.

Exponor’s role in this process can be no other than systematically recalling
the banks of the necessity to recharge the machines before the fairs.
Moreover Exponor ought to take advantage of the highlights revealed by the

customers in all communication programs, as they are competitive advantages that
also strengthen the image of a certified company which Exponor already has.
As characteristics to be enhanced we suggest the friendliness, accessibility and

competence of the staff, the clearness of written documentation, the scrupulous
fulfillment of contracts, the good general quality of the venue – well decorated and
clean –, and the excellent quality of services it provides. At last, Exponor is the
place to return every year to take part in the event par excellence where the latest
developments and trends of the sector are disclosed, carried through at the ideal
time of the year and with the right schedule – INTERDECORAÇÃO.
104
APPENDIX
105
106
Appendix A - The original questionnaire sent to the exhibitors (pages 1 to 4)
107
108
109
110
Appendix B - The original questionnaire sent to the visitors (pages 1 to 4)
111
112
113
114
GLOSSARY
Common terms and phrases used in the trade show industry36
Agent - A bona fide representative with proper credentials from the party represented.
Aisle - A walkway intended for audience movement through an exposition or exhibit.
Aisle Carpet - Carpeting installed in trade show aisles.
Aisle Signs - Signs, usually suspended, identifying exposition aisles by number or
letter.
Air Conditioning - A system for controlling temperature, humidity and purity of the
air circulating in a building.
Application Form - The contract stating the exhibitor’s enrollment in a certain fair.
Assembly - The process of setting up exhibit properties according to specifications.
Also called Installation, Set Up.
ATM - Abbreviation form of Automated Teller Machine. Machine that provides cash
and account information on insertion of a machine-readable card. Also known as cash
dispenser and cashpoint. In Portugal it is known as Multibanco.
Attendees - See Visitors.
Backlight - A light source that illuminates translucent material from behind.

Back Wall - The panels at the rear of an exhibit.
Banner - A suspended panel used as a decoration or a sign, usually made of fabric or
paper for temporary use.
Blueprint - A scale drawing of booth space layout, construction, and specifications.
Booth - American term for Stand.
Booth Area - See Stand Area.
Booth Number - See Stand Number.
Booth Size - See Stand Size.
36 Adapted from “Glossary Of Terms.” Exhibitornet.com web site, Exhibitor Magazine Group, 2000
115
Calendar - Timetable of exhibitions covering a period of a year.

Carpenter - A skilled worker used to uncrate, install, dismantle, and recrate exhibit
properties.
Carpet Tape - Double-sided tape used to adhere the edge of a carpet to the floor.
Carrier - A transportation line moving freight. Usually a van line, common carrier,
rail line, or air carrier.
Catalogue - A guide for exhibition attendees that lists exhibitors and exhibit
locations. Also called Exhibit Directory.
Check-in - A reception desk where trade visitors have register before entering the
fair.
Cleaning - The activity of making the facilities clean; cleanness; the degree to which a
place is kept clean.
Column - A pillar in an exposition facility that supports the roof or other overhead
structures. Usually shown on a floor plan as a solid square.
Commercial Invoice - An itemized list of shipped goods.
Common Area - Zone of the venue not rented to exhibitors.
Construction Drawing - A drawing that gives detailed diagrams and instructions for
building an exhibit.
Contractor - An individual or company that provides services or materials to a trade
show and/or its exhibitors.
Corner Stand - An exhibit space with exposure on at least two aisles.
Craftsperson - A skilled worker who provides services at the exposition facility.
Cross-aisle - An aisle at a right angle to a main aisle.
Damage Report - A report submitted by an exhibitor to a freight company or

drayage contractor itemizing damage to shipped goods.
Decorator - An individual or company providing services for a trade show and/or its
exhibitors.
Dismantle - To take apart an exhibit. Also known as Takedown, Teardown.
Display Builder - A company that fabricates exhibits.
Dock - A platform where freight is loaded onto and removed from vehicles or
vessels.
Double-decker - A two-storied exhibit. Also known as Multiple Story Exhibit.
116
End Cap - An exhibit space with aisles on three sides.

Exhibit Designer/Producer - Company responsible for designing and constructing
exhibit stands.
Exhibit Directory - See Catalogue.
Exhibit Hall - The area(s) within an exposition center where exhibits are located.
Exhibit Manager - Person in charge of a company’s exhibit program.
Exhibitor Kit - A package of information that contains all rules, regulations, and
forms relating to an exhibition, provided to exhibitors by show management. Also
called Service Kit.
Export - To send or transport goods out of one country for sale in another.
Exposition Manager - See Show Manager.
Exposition Rules - The set of regulations that govern a given trade show.
Fabrication - The construction of an exhibit.

Fire Exit - A door designated for emergency egress, which must be kept clear of
obstructions.
Fire Lane - An aisle that must be kept clear of obstructions to allow emergency
egress.
Fire Retardant - Term used to describe a finish that coats materials with a fire-
resistant (not fire proof) cover.
Floor Manager - An individual representing show management who is responsible
for the exhibition area.
Floor Marking - Method used to mark booth spaces.
Floor Order - See Last Minute Orders.
Floor Plan - A map showing the size and locations of exhibit spaces.
Forklift - Motorized vehicle used to load, unload, and transport heavy items.
Graphic - A photo, copy panel, or artwork applied to an exhibit.

Grid System - A network of structural members, electrical conduits, and other
support systems on a pattern of centers.
117
Hall - General term used for an exposition facility or the exhibit area within a facility.
Hand Truck - Small hand-propelled vehicle used for transporting small loads.
Hardwall - A type of exhibit construction in which walls are made of a solid material,
rather than fabric.
Header - A sign or other structure across the top of an exhibit.
In-line - An exhibit that is constructed in a continuous line along an aisle. Also called
Linear Display.
Installation - See Assembly.
Installation & Dismantle - The set up and takedown of exhibits. Also called I & D.
Inventory - Total amount of equipment available for a show.
Island Exhibit - A display with aisles on four sides.
Last Minute Orders - Order for services placed after exhibit installation has begun.
Also called Floor Order.
Lead Tracking - A manual or automated system used to conduct follow-up activities
for sales prospects resulting from a trade show.
Liability - A legal term referring to responsibility for damages or injuries.
Lighting - The amount or type of illumination in an exhibit or exhibition hall.
Linear Display - An exhibit that is constructed in a continuous line along an aisle.
Also called In-line.
Logo - A specific symbol chosen to represent a company. Usually comprised of
stylized type alone or in conjunction with graphic art.
Modular Exhibit - An exhibit constructed with interchangeable components

designed to be set-up in various arrangements and sizes.
Move-in - The date specified by show management for beginning exhibit installation.
118
Move-out - The date specified by show management for dismantling exhibits.

Multibanco - See ATM.
Multimedia - Combining two or more types of audio/visual support in a
presentation.
Official Catalogue - See Catalogue.
Pallet - A low wooden frame used to support heavy objects or groups of materials
for easier handling. Usually used as a platform for objects moved by forklift.
Panel System - A prefabricated exhibit composed of connected rectangular panels of
various sizes.
Parallel Activities - Set of seminars, conferences, workshops and other events taking
place simultaneously and related to the exhibition.
Peninsula Display - An exhibit with aisles on three sides.
Podium - A demonstration area, usually higher than the surrounding floor.
Portable Exhibit - A lightweight display unit that can be moved without a forklift.
Prefab - A pre-built exhibit ready for installation.
Press Kit - A package of materials put together for the media. Usually a folder
containing press releases, product announcements, and other materials.
Press Release - An article submitted to the media for publication. Usually
announcing news about a product, company, or individual.
Rear Illumination - A technique of using a light source to illuminate a translucent

image from behind. Also called Backlighting.
Riser - A platform for people or materials.
Scissors Lift - A motorized platform used to lift people to a given height.

Scooter - An electric or gas cart used to transport people and materials.
119
Security - Organization entrusted with the job of protecting the venue, its exhibitors
and visitors form intrusion and crime.
Service Desk - The location at which exhibitors order services from show
management.
Service Kit - A packet of show-related information and order forms provided to
exhibitors by show management. Also called Exhibitor Kit.
Set Up - See Assembly.
Set-up Drawing - Drawings that give detailed instructions for the installation of an
exhibit.
Show Decorator - A company or individual responsible for providing draping,
carpeting, and signage services for the trade show and its exhibitors.
Show Manager - The organizer and operator of an exposition.
Show Office - The show management office at an exposition.
Show Photographer - The show management appointed photographer for an
exhibition.
Show Producer - An individual or company that manages trade shows, including
leasing the exposition facility, hiring official contractors, and promoting the show.
Show Rules - The general rules and regulations governing a specific trade show.
Sign Standard - A frame on a stand into which a sign can be inserted for display.
Signage - The signs collectively its design and display.
Site - Specific location of the exhibitors stand.
Skid - See Pallet.
Space - The area occupied by an exhibitor in the exhibition hall.
Space Rate - The cost per square foot of exhibit area.
Spotlight - A lamp that provides a defined circle of light.
Staging Area - A location used for demonstrations.
Stand - An area made up of one or more standard units of exhibit space. European
term for Booth.
Stand Area - The amount of floor space assigned to an exhibitor. Also called Booth
Area.
Stand Number - A number assigned by show management to identify an exhibitor’s
floor space. Also called Booth Number.
Stand Size - The dimensions of the floor space contracted by an exhibitor. Usually
sold in 3m x 3m increments.
Subcontractor - An individual or company retained by a general contractor to
provide services.
Teardown - See Dismantle.
120
Technical Services - Skilled assistance performed by the exhibit contractor, like

electrical assistance.
Terminal - Freight handling or dock area.
Trade Fair - An exposition related to a particular industry or group, and open only to
the members of that group.
Trade Show - See Trade Fair.
Traffic Flow - The movement of visitors through an exposition or exhibit.
V.A.T. - Value Added Tax. A tax that has been added to the overall price of a
product reflecting the value added to the product by processing. In Portugal it is
known as IVA.
Velcro - The trade name for a fabric closure with two components: hooks and loops.
The two components adhere when pressed together and separate when pulled apart,
allowing repeated use.
Visitors - Those persons who visit an event that are not exhibiting or connected with
the event itself. Also called Attendees.
Wallboard - A construction product used for panels that are temporary.

Waste Removal - The removal of trash from an area or building.
121
122
BIBLIOGRAPHY
“A tarvés de su actividad ferial Exponor conecta a los empresarios españoles con

Brasil”. Mundo Ferial – Ferias y Congresos, n.º 93, 1999, 32-33.
Ad Agencies Value Exhibitions. (Research report) Chicago, Center for Exhibition
Industry Research and IAEM Foundation.
Analysis of Trade Show and Conference Attendees Regarding Their Opinions of Why (or Why
Not) They Attend Various Trade Shows and Conferences. (Research report) Chicago,
Center for Exhibition Industry Research and B.R. Blackmarr & Associates.
Ary, Pedro. “Como Ganhar Com As Feiras” PME Negócios. Lisboa, Dec. 2000 – Jan.
2001, pp. 52-58
Attendee Purchase Behavior at a Retail Trade Show. (Research report) Chicago, Center for
Exhibition Industry Research.
Attendee Purchase Practices at a Major Health Care Conference. (Research report) Chicago,
Center for Exhibition Industry Research and Exhibit Surveys, Inc.
Baker-Neufeld, Judi. “Using Audits To Improve Exhibit Performance.” Exhibitor
Magazine - The Magazine for Trade Show and Event Marketing Management, February
2000.
Belle, Daniel C. Attendee Purchase Behavior at an Industrial Trade Show. (Research report)
Chicago, Center for Exhibition Industry Research.
Bernardo, Nuno. “Feiras: a importância do contacto”. Portugal Empresarial, n.º 3, 10.
Bernardo, Nuno. “Feiras: a chave da planificação”. Portugal Empresarial, n.º 4, 9.
“Boothsmanship - Get the most out of your trade show participation.” Trade Show
Advisor web site, 1998.
Bring More Qualified Sales Prospects to Your Booth. (Research report) Chicago, Center for
Exhibition Industry Research Resource Center.
Buyer Profiles: Show and Readership Practices. (Research report) Chicago, Center for
Bruno, Michelle. “Messe Model - exploring the German trade fair industry”. Expo 24-
7 web site, 2001.
Castro, Armando de. “A transformação da vida económica portuguesa (1820-1851).”
História de Portugal, vol. 6. Lisboa: Publicações Alfa, 1983: 208-233.
Caulton, Tim. Hands-on Exhibitions. Managing Interactive Museums and Science Centres.
London and New York: Routledge, 1999.
CEIR’s 20/20: Twenty CEIR Research Reports Spanning Twenty Years. (Research report)
CEIRDirect. Center for Exhibition Industry Research, newsletter Jan./Fev. 2000.
CEIRDirect. Center for Exhibition Industry Research, newsletter Nov./Dec. 1999.
123
Chapman, Jr., Edward A. Exhibit Marketing. A Success Guide for Managers, 2nd ed. New
York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1995.
Chonko, Larry, Jeff Tanner. Relationship Selling at Trade Shows: Avoid the Seven Deadly
Salespeople. (Research report) Chicago, Center for Exhibition Industry Research
and Baylor University.
Cody, Kenneth, and Hope, Beverley. Ex-Servqual: An instrument to measure service quality
of Extranets. Wellington: School of Communications and Information
Management, Victoria University of Wellington, 1999.
Coping with Trade Show Overload: Strategies for Show Attendees. (Research report) Chicago,
Center for Exhibition Industry Research.
Custódio, Jorge. Empresariado Português: uma abordagem às suas realizações. Porto,
Associação Industrial Portuense, 1994.
Dallmeyer, Bob. Cold Facts, Hot Tips: An Indispensable Guide to Successful Exhibiting.
Chicago, Center for Exhibition Industry Research and R.D. International.
Dallmeyer, Bob. Turning Leads into Sales. (Research report) Chicago, Center for
Exhibition Industry Research and R.D. International.
Decision-Makers Prefer Trade Shows. (Research report) Chicago, Center for Exhibition
Industry Research.
Decision-Makers Take Buying Actions at Exhibitions. (Research report) Chicago, Center
for Exhibition Industry Research.
Deloitte & Touche. Estudo Sobre o Mercado de Feiras e Exposições. Lisboa: Gabinete
Gestor do PEDIP – Ministério da Economia, 1995.
Develop Your Prospects and Close Sales for Less with Exhibitions. Exhibit Surveys, Inc. and
Cahners Advertising Research Reports.
Direct Mail Facts and Figures. (Research report) Chicago, Center for Exhibition Industry
Research Resource Center.
Effect of Booth Location on Exhibit Performance and Impact, The. (Research report) Chicago,
Effect of Economic Recessions on Trade Shows, The. (Research report) Chicago, Center for
Exhibition Industry Research, 1988.
Effectiveness of Using Promotional Products at Exhibitions, The. (Research report) Chicago,
European Trade Fair and Exhibition Statistics 2000. Berlin, FKM – Society for Voluntary
Control of Fair and Exhibition Statistics, 2001.
European Trade Fair and Exhibition Statistics 2001. Berlin, FKM – Society for Voluntary
Control of Fair and Exhibition Statistics, 2002.
Exhibit Management Function - Perceptions of Exhibit Management and Marketing Executives,
The. (Research report) Chicago, Center for Exhibition Industry Research.
Exhibitions are More Effective in Achieving Sales/Marketing Objectives. (Research report)
Chicago, Center for Exhibition Industry Research and Deloitte & Touche
Consulting Group.
124
Exhibitions Attract Untapped Market of Visitors with Buying Authority. (Research report)
Chicago, Center for Exhibition Industry Research, Exhibit Surveys, Inc. and The
Wayman Group, 1997.
“Exhibitions Ranked No. 3 Among Business-To-Business Marketing Tactics In Study
By Business Marketing.” Center for Exhibition Industry Research web site, 2000
Exposition Attendance Promotion - Effective Communication Practices. (Research report)
Facts About Manufacturing Show Attendees. (Research report) Chicago, Center for
Facts About Retail Show Attendees. (Research report) Chicago, Center for Exhibition
Industry Research.
Facts About Service Show Attendees. (Research report) Chicago, Center for Exhibition
Industry Research.
Faria, A.J., John R. Dickinson. Trade Show Selection Criteria. (Research report) Chicago,
Center for Exhibition Industry Research and University of Windsor.
Friedman, Arthur L. Why Some Exhibits Pay Off. (Research report) Chicago, Center for
Exhibition Industry Research and General Exhibits.
Friedmann, Susan. “10 Common Mistakes Exhibitors Make.” ExhibiTips, Trade Show
Exhibitors Association, December 1995.
Friedmann, Susan. “Advertising Premiums.” ExhibiTips, Trade Show Exhibitors
Association, February 1993.
Friedmann, Susan. “Advertising.” ExhibiTips, Trade Show Exhibitors Association,
November 1993.
Friedmann, Susan. “Boothmanship.” ExhibiTips, Trade Show Exhibitors Association,
April 1994.
Friedmann, Susan. “Budgeting.” ExhibiTips, Trade Show Exhibitors Association, May
1993.
Friedmann, Susan. “Checking Out the Competition.” ExhibiTips, Trade Show
Exhibitors Association, June 1995.
Friedmann, Susan. “Choosing an Exhibit.” ExhibiTips, Trade Show Exhibitors
Association, November 1995.
Friedmann, Susan. “Customer Service.” ExhibiTips, Trade Show Exhibitors
Association, June 1994.
Friedmann, Susan. “Developing an Exhibitor Tool Kit.” ExhibiTips, Trade Show
Exhibitors Association, May 1995.
Friedmann, Susan. “Establishing Trade Show Goals and Objectives.” ExhibiTips,
Trade Show Exhibitors Association, April 1993.
Friedmann, Susan. “Exhibit Design.” ExhibiTips, Trade Show Exhibitors Association,
July 1993.
Friedmann, Susan. “Exhibiting in Europe.” ExhibiTips, Trade Show Exhibitors
Association, July 1996.
125
Friedmann, Susan. “Exhibiting Internationally.” ExhibiTips, Trade Show Exhibitors

Association, September 1994.
Friedmann, Susan. “Exhibitor Checklist: 75 Dynamic Ways to Increase Your Trade
Show Success.” ExhibiTips, Trade Show Exhibitors Association, January 1993.
Friedmann, Susan. “Measuring Exhibiting Success.” ExhibiTips, Trade Show
Exhibitors Association, August 1995.
Friedmann, Susan. “Show Evaluation.” ExhibiTips, Trade Show Exhibitors
Association, March 1993.
Friedmann, Susan. “Show Services.” ExhibiTips, Trade Show Exhibitors Association,
June 1996.
Friedmann, Susan. “Sources of Information on International Trade.” ExhibiTips,
Trade Show Exhibitors Association, September 1995.
Friedmann, Susan. “Space Selection.” ExhibiTips, Trade Show Exhibitors Association,
October 1993.
Friedmann, Susan. “Visiting a Trade Show.” ExhibiTips, Trade Show Exhibitors
Association, January 1995.
Gift and Apparel Exhibiting and the Product Life Cycle. (Research report) Chicago, Center
“Glossary Of Terms.” Exhibitornet.com web site, Exhibitor Magazine Group, 2000.
Golfetto, Francesca, F. H. Rolf Seringhaus. A Profile of the European Trade Fair Sector,
1990-1995. (Research report) Chicago, Center for Exhibition Industry Research,
Bocconi University and Wilfrid Laurier University.
Gopalakrishna, Srinath, Dr. Jerome Williams. Identifying Important Factors in Lead
Efficiency at Trade Shows. (Research report) Chicago, Center for Exhibition Industry
Research and Penn State University.
Hart, M.C. Improving the Discrimination of Servqual by using Magnitude Scaling. Leicester, De
Montfort University, 1996.
Hatch, Michael J. How to Design a More Sales-Effective Exhibit. (Research report)
Chicago, Center for Exhibition Industry Research and PEGS Exhibits.
Hatch, Michael J. How to Improve Your Sales Success at Exhibitions. (Research report)
Chicago, Center for Exhibition Industry Research and PEGS Exhibits.
Head, James, Ralph Head. Positioning, Objectives, and Selection Factors for Trade Shows.
(Research report) Chicago, Center for Exhibition Industry Research.
“History of Fairs.” International Association of Fairs and Expositions web site, 2000
Hospitality Exhibiting and the Product Life Cycle. (Research report) Chicago, Center for
Hough, Joan. Corporate Executives’ Perceptions of Trade Expositions - Factors Which Influence
Attendance Decisions. (Research report) Chicago, Center for Exhibition Industry
Research, 1986.
How Much Does It Cost to Close a Sale? (Research report) Chicago, Center for Exhibition
Industry Research.
126
How the Exhibit Dollar is Spent. (Research report) Chicago, Center for Exhibition
Industry Research and Exhibit Surveys, Inc.
Interdecoração – Estudo Sectorial. Matosinhos, AEP – Departamento de Estudos e
Desenvolvimento, 2001
Klein, Karen E. “Show and Sell at a big trade show, a novice learns the ropes and a
veteran gathers leads.” Business Week, 16 Aug. 1999.
Klein, Karen E. “Trade Secrets. Trade shows are indispensable for making contacts,
nailing sales, and showing off a hot new product — but you've got to prepare
ahead.” Business Week, 16 Aug. 1999.
Konikow, Robert, E. J. Lorimer. Pre-Show Promotions: Basic Steps. (Research report)
Chicago, Center for Exhibition Industry Research and CME.
Konopacki, Allen. Five Ways to Get More Out of Brochures at Trade Shows. (Research
report) Chicago, Center for Exhibition Industry Research and Incomm
International.
Konopacki, Allen. Pre-Show Promotion Tips That Increase Exhibiting Results. (Research
report) Chicago, Center for Exhibition Industry Research and Incomm
International.
Konopacki, Allen. Secrets of the Aisle. (Research report) Chicago, Center for Exhibition
Industry Research and Incomm International.
Kotler, Philip. Marketing Management – Analysis, Planning, Implementation, and Control.
New Jersey, Prentice Hall International, Inc., 9th edition, 1997.
Kuca, Aloijzy A. Is There an Alternative to Trade Fairs? Poznan, Polish Trade Fair
Corporation, 2000
Lavidge, Elrick. An Analysis of the Attitudes and Perceptions of Senior Level Executives
Currently Not Utilizing Exhibitions. (Research report) Chicago, Center for
Letwin, Robert, Twenty Ways to Turn a So-So Show into a Bonanza. (Research report)
Levinson, Jay Conrad, Mark S. A. Smith, Orvel Ray Wilson. Guerrilla Trade Show
Selling. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1997.
Libow, Michael E. “Staffing Your European Exhibit.” ExhibiTips, Trade Show
Exhibitors Association, October 1998.
Lindon, Denis, Lendrevie, Jacques, Rodrigues, Joaquim Vicente, and Dionísio, Pedro.
Mercator 2000 – Teoria e Prática do Marketing. Lisboa: Publicações Dom Quixote, 9.ª
edição, 2000.
Manufacturing Organizations’ Use of Trade Shows Throughout the Product Life Cycle. (Research
report) Chicago, Center for Exhibition Industry Research.
Miller, Steve. How to Get the Most Out of Trade Shows, 3rd ed. Chicago: NTC Business
Books, 1999.
Most Remembered Exhibits: An Analysis of the Factors Affecting Exhibit Recall. New Jersey,
Exhibit Surveys, Inc.
127
Nitecki, Danuta A. Servqual: Measuring Service Quality in Academic Libraries. Washington,

DC: Association of Research Libraries, 1997.
Noble, Mark F. Pre-Show Promotion: Its Role in New Product Introduction. (Research report)
Chicago: Center for Exhibition Industry Research.
Ofstie, Charyn. Trade Show Lead Systems: A Faster Track to Sales. (Research report)
Chicago: Center for Exhibition Industry Research.
One-Half of Exhibition Attendees Do Not Attend Other Shows. (Research report) Chicago:
Center for Exhibition Industry Research, Exhibit Surveys, Inc. and The Wayman
Group. 1997.
“Online Exhibitor Manuals Are Here To Stay.” ExhibiTips, Trade Show Exhibitors
Association, Apr. 1998
Portugal 1995 – Fairs And Exhibitions Statistics, Estatísticas de Feiras e Salões. Lisboa: BDO
Binder, 1996.
Binder, 1997.
Binder, 1998.
Binder, 1999.
Portugal 1999-2000 – Fairs And Exhibitions Statistics, Estatísticas de Feiras e Salões. Lisboa:
BDO Binder, 2001.
Power of Trade Shows: Gift and Apparel Industry, The. (Research report) Chicago: Center
Power of Trade Shows: Likes and Dislikes of Trade Shows, The. (Research report) Chicago:
“Pre-Show Planning.” Trade Show Advisor web site, 1999.
“Products & Services.” Trade Show Advisor web site, 1999.
Profile of the United Kingdom Exhibition Industry, 1990-1996, A. (Research report)
Association of Exhibition Organisers, British Exhibition Venues Association and
the Exhibition Industry Federation.
Projected Growth of the Exposition Industry, The. (Research report) Chicago, Center for
Exhibition Industry Research and Tradeshow Week.
“Promotional Ideas.” Trade Show Advisor web site, 1999.
“Promotions Under Scrutiny.” Exhibitor Magazine, 1995.
Ramos, Luís A de Oliveira. História do Porto. Porto: Porto Editora, 1994
Rau, Virgínia. “Feiras”. Dicionário de História de Portugal. Porto, Livraria Figueirinhas,
1985, vol. II, 539-542.
Reaching Export Objectives Through International Trade Fairs. (Research report) Chicago,
Center for Exhibition Industry Research, 1989.
Reaching the Unknown Prospect: Trade Show Visitors Not Reached by Regular Sales Calls.
(Research report) Chicago, Center for Exhibition Industry Research.
128
Robbe, Deborah. Expositions and Trade Shows. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
2000.
Role of Seminars As an Element of Trade Shows, The. (Research report) Chicago, Center for
Exhibition Industry Research, Thiebaud Associates and Bertram, McKee and
Associates, 1994
Rosenthal, Alan J. “Hands On TQM. Determining Client Requirements”. Rosenthal
Legal Services web site, www.rosenthal-legal.com.
Santos, Fernando Caldeira dos. “Feiras, congressos e conferências internacionais – os
factores de atracção e o calendário actual”. AIP Informação, n.º 4-6, 1999: 43-47.
Sarmento, Maria de Lurdes Amorim Faria. A Importância da Participação em Feiras na
Estratégia de Marketing. Braga: Universidade do Minho, 1997.
Siskind, Barry. Effective Show Presentations. (Research report) Chicago, Center for
Exhibition Industry Research and International Training and Management
Company.
Siskind, Barry. Exhibitions Are Not Sales Calls. (Research report) Chicago, Center for
Exhibition Industry Research and International Training and Management
Company.
Siskind, Barry. Hidden Opportunities at Trade and Consumer Shows. (Research report)
Chicago, Center for Exhibition Industry Research and International Training and
Management Company.
Siskind, Barry. The Art of Engaging and Disengaging Prospects at a Show. (Research report)
Chicago, Center for Exhibition Industry Research and International Training and
Management Company.
Siskind, Barry. The Power of Exhibit Marketing, 4th ed. Bellingham and North
Vancouver: Self-Counsel Press Ltd., 1997.
Siza, M. Tereza. O Porto e os Seus Fotógrafos. Porto: Porto Editora, 2001.
Skolnik, Rayna. How to Choose the Right Show. (Research report) Chicago, Center for
Skolnik, Rayna. Tips for Exhibition Attendees: Six Steps to Survival - And Success. (Research
report) Chicago, Center for Exhibition Industry Research.
Smith, Mark S.A. “5 Ways to Increase Your Trade Show Sales.” The Guerrilla Group
web site, 1999.
Smith, Mark S.A. “Follow Up Strategies Close Trade Show Sales.” The Guerrilla
Group web site, 1999.
Smith, Mark S.A. “Select Trade Shows For Success.” The Guerrilla Group web site,
1999.
Smith, Mark S.A. “Trade Show Give-Aways That Work.” The Guerrilla Group web
site, 1999.
Smith, Mark S.A. “Trade Show Promotions That Bring In The Buyers.” The Guerrilla
Group web site, 1999.
Smith, Mark S.A. “Trade Shows, Consumer Shows: Know The Difference And
Profit.” The Guerrilla Group web site, 1999.
129
Sousa, Fernando de, Alves, Jorge Fernandes. A Associação Industrial Portuense: para a
história do associativismo empresarial. Porto: Associação Industrial Portuense, 1996.
Swandby, Richard. How to Improve Your Trade Show Performance – Measurably. (Research
report) Chicago, Center for Exhibition Industry Research and Exhibit Surveys.
Tanner, Jeff, Larry Chonko. Exhibiting Success in Manufacturing. (Research report)
Chicago, Center for Exhibition Industry Research and Baylor University.
Tanner, Jeff, Larry Chonko. Exhibiting to Resellers at the Complete Show. (Research report)
Chicago, Center for Exhibition Industry Research and Baylor University.
Tanner, Jeff, Larry Chonko. How Beneficial are Trade Shows Across the Product Life Cycle.
(Research report) Chicago, Center for Exhibition Industry Research and Baylor
University’s Center for Professional Selling.
Tanner, Jeff, Larry Chonko. Low Tech Companies Wield the Power of Exhibitions.
(Research report) Chicago, Center for Exhibition Industry Research and Baylor
University.
Tanner, Jeff, Larry Chonko. Using Exhibitions Throughout the Product Life Cycle. (Research
report) Chicago, Center for Exhibition Industry Research and Baylor University’s
Center for Professional Selling.
Tanner, Jeff, Larry Chonko. What Exhibition Attendees Want from Direct Mail. (Research
report) Chicago, Center for Exhibition Industry Research and Baylor University.
Tanner, Jeff. Summary Results: What Successful Exhibitors Do to Get Results. (Research
report) Chicago, Center for Exhibition Industry Research and Baylor University.
Tanner, John F. Exhibiting Practices of Small Manufacturers. (Research report) Chicago,
Center for Exhibition Industry Research and Baylor University.
Taylor, Alan. Profit from Exhibitions and Trade Fairs. Oxford: Management Books 2000
Ltd., 1995.
Tesar, Jenny. A Formula for Determining Exhibit Staff and Space Needs. New Jersey,
Exhibit Surveys, Inc.
“Trade Show Success Calendar.” Trade Show Advisor web site, 1998.
Trade Show Success Indicators: Audience Quality 1984-1989. (Research report) Chicago,
“Trade Show Trends for the New Millennium. Ten Keys to Unlock the Mystery of
the Exhibition Industry’s Future.” PowerPoint presentation, Center for
Exhibition Industry Research web site, 2000
Trade Shows in the Purchasing Cycle. (Research report) Chicago, Center for Exhibition
Industry Research, 1992.
Trade Shows Provide Business Opportunities. (Research report) Chicago, Center for
Trochim, William M.K. “Likert Scaling”. Bill Trochim’s Center for Social Research
Methods web site: trochim.human.cornell.edu
Understanding and Influencing Your Audience: An Analysis of First-Time and Previous
Exhibition Attendees. (Research report) Chicago, Center for Exhibition Industry
Research and Exhibit Surveys, Inc.
130
Viegas, Márcia. Marketing de Feiras. Manual do Expositor. Lisboa: Edições Sílabo, 2000.
Weisgal, Margit. The End of the Show. (Research report) Chicago, Center for Exhibition
Industry Research and Sextant Communications.
Werth, Richard. Convention and Trade Show Security Tips. (Research report) Chicago,
Center for Exhibition Industry Research and CPP.
Young, Gary. Managing the Exhibit Function: Survey of Exhibit Management Practices.
(Research report) Chicago, Center for Exhibition Industry Research and Boston
College.
Zeithaml, Valarie A., Parasuraman, A., and Berry, Leonard L. Delivering Quality Service.
Balancing Customer Perceptions and Expectations. New York: The Free Press, 1990.
131
132

Customer Satisfaction at A Portuguese Trade Fair

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Customer Satisfaction at A Portuguese Trade Fair

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

CUSTOMER SATISFACTION

AT A PORTUGUESE TRADE FAIR

Master of Arts in Business Communications and Public Relations

This work is an analysis of two customer satisfaction assessments of a particular trade

7.1.6 The Exhibition - Organization................................................................................64

Figure 35 – Correlations with the question achievement of objectives in 2002...........................92

Compared to other European counterparts, Portuguese companies were later to wake

The study includes two main sections:

1. The fist one, including chapters 2 to 5, gives an overview of the evolution of

This study intends to be a contribution to a better understanding of the factors of

TRADE FAIRS AROUND THE WORLD

The history of humankind is replete with references to fairs, not in an institutional

2.2 European and American Trade Fairs

increasingly specialized needs of exhibitors and visitors, as well as to greater

In many countries, particularly in the U.S., the exhibition facility is an entirely

2.3 Categories of Exhibitions

2.3.1 Trade and Industrial Fairs

• Trade fairs for a particular industry or related group.

2.3.2 Consumer and Public Exhibitions

2.3.3 Other Exhibition Attractions

TRADE FAIRS IN PORTUGAL

3.1 Historical perspective

Fairs constituted one of the most prominent Portuguese medieval institutions.

9 Virgínia Rau, “Feiras”, Dicionário de História de Portugal, II (1985), 539.

10 Virgínia Rau, “Feiras”, Dicionário de História de Portugal, II (1985): 542

José Vitorino Damásio, a professor in the Polytechnic School of Porto, leading a

In 1865 Palácio de Cristal was inaugurated with the International Industrial

In 1888, in Lisbon, the National Exhibition of the Manufacturing Industry

In Northern Portugal, AEP created a separate department especially devoted to

3.2 Trade Fair Organizers

• Aveiro: Parque de Feiras e Exposições de Aveiro

• Santarém: CNEMA – Centro Nacional de Exposições e Mercados Agrícolas

3.2.1 The Braga Exhibition Center – PEB

22 Main information source: PEB web site, www.peb.pt, 2002

As complementary structure of the exhibition complex, PEB has a congress center,

Figure 2 – Evolution of the number of exhibitors between 1995 and 2001.24

3.2.2 International Fair of Lisbon – FIL

The Associação Industrial Portuguesa (AIP – Portuguese Industrial Association) was

3.2.3 Exponor – Porto International Fair

Exponor is Portugal’s largest exhibition center, and considered to be the Iberian

Exponor is owned by Associação Empresarial de Portugal (AEP – Portuguese

Presently, Exponor occupies a covered area of 60,000 sq. m. and it is strategically

THE DECORATION MARKET IN PORTUGAL

The ceramics industry has a significant weight in Portugal’s processing industry. In

28 Interdecoração – Estudo Sectorial, (Matosinhos: AEP, 2001), 8.

In general terms, the sector’s foreign trade is positive, representing approximately €

30 Interdecoração – Estudo Sectorial, (Matosinhos: AEP, 2001), 9.

• A powerful generator of added value, an • Dependence of the packaging glass subsector

• Diversification of markets and inter- • New competitors

Figure 5 - SWOT Analysis of the Glass Manufacturing Sector

This evolution has been accompanied by an increasing number of stores, especially

31 Interdecoração – Estudo Sectorial, (Matosinhos: AEP, 2001), 6.

32 Decree-law n. º 154/99 of 10th May, article 2, n. º 1.

INTERDECORAÇÃO TRADE FAIR

INTERDECORAÇÃO is Exponor’s most recent trade fair specifically devoted to

5.2 The First Semester Decoration Fair

INTERDECORAÇÃO started in January 1999, covering the following areas:

6.1 Structure of the Sample

6.2 Methodologies and Structure of the Questionnaires

The questionnaires were conceived in order to evaluate the satisfaction of the

• Tangibles: The appearance of physical facilities, equipment, personnel and

In terms of evaluation of the service, the questionnaire aimed to be as exhaustive as

As complement to the sections of evaluation of the service, the questionnaire