Consumer perceptions of trade show effectiveness

Abstract

Purpose -This paper aims to develop and estimate a model to measure consumer perceptions of trade show effectiveness. Design/methodology/approach -Data were collected at three separate B2C trade shows. Study 1 (n ¼ 47) involved field interviews with data subjected to qualitative item generation and content analysis. Study 2 data (n ¼ 147) were subjected to exploratory factor analysis and item-total correlation to identify a preliminary factor structure for the effectiveness construct and to test for reliability. In Study 3 (n ¼ 592), confirmatory factor analysis was undertaken to more rigorously test the factor structure and generalise across industries. Validity testing was also performed. Findings -A three-dimensional factor structure for assessing consumer visitors' perceptions of trade show effectiveness was produced incorporating research, operational, and entertainment components. Research limitations/implications -Data were collected in Australia and results may not generalise across cultural boundaries. Practical implications -The resulting measurement model may be used as a reliable post-hoc diagnostic tool to identify areas of trade show effectiveness where specific performance improvements are needed. Results indicate that exhibitors and organisers of B2C trade shows should consider effectiveness as a multidimensional phenomenon with entertainment, product/industry research, and the facilitation of purchase decision-making processes and problem resolution being key objectives for consumer attendees. These elements of effectiveness should each be addressed by exhibitors and organisers in planning their displays and events. Originality/value -This is the first study to provide an empirically valid model for assessing trade show effectiveness from the consumer visitor's perspective.

Scale development: ten main limitations and recommendations to improve future research practices

“…Another problem noted in this systematic review was that some studies failed to clearly report how they performed the theoretical analysis of the items (e.g., Glynn et al 2015;Gottlieb et al 2014). We hypothesized that the authors either did not perform this analysis or found it unimportant to record.…”

“…Firstly, items that were ambiguous or difficult to answer were the main weaknesses reported by Gottlieb et al (2014). On this issue, the literature dealing with the necessary caution in wording the items is extensive.…”

“…Difficulty controlling all variables In addition to all limitations reported, Gottlieb et al (2014) mentioned a common limitation in different research fields-the difficulty of controlling all the variables that could influence the central construct of the study. The authors reported that "it may be that there are other variables that influence visitors' perception of trade show effectiveness that were not uncovered in the research" and suggest "future research might yield insights that are not provided here" (p. 104).…”

“…These limitations were identified in five main forms: (1) EFA and CFA were conducted using the data from the same sample (Zheng et al 2010)-when this occurs, good model fit in the CFA is expected, as a consequence, the added strength of the CFA in testing a hypothesized structure for a new data set based on theory or previous findings is lost (Khine 2008); (2) lack of CFA (Bolton and Lane 2012)-if this happens, the researcher loses the possibility of assigning items to factors, testing the hypothesized structure of the data, and statistically comparing alternative models (Khine 2008); (3) a certain amount of subjectivity was necessary in identifying and labeling factors in EFA (Lombaerts et al 2009)-since a factor is qualitative, it is common practice to label each factor based on an interpretation of the variables loading most heavily on it; the problem is that these labels are subjective in nature, represent the authors' interpretation, and can vary typically from 0.30 to 0.50 (Gottlieb et al 2014;Khine 2008); (4) the initial unsatisfactory factor analysis output (Lombaerts et al 2009); and (5) lack of a more robust CFA level (Jong et al 2014) taken together--when the study result distances itself from statistical results expected for EFA (e.g., KMO, Bartlett test of sphericity) and/or CFA (e.g., CFI, GFI, RMSEA), it results in an important limitation, since the tested exploratory and theoretical models are not considered valid (Khine 2008). Taking these results, future studies should consider the use of separate samples for EFA and CFA, the combination of EFA and CFA, the definition of objective parameters to label factors, and about the consideration for unsatisfactory results of EFA and CFA, seeking alternatives to better fit the model.…”

Connected IT Usage and Trade Show Effectiveness

“…This article reviews the existing TSs and Management Information System(MIS) literature and develops a framework of connected IT usage and visitors effectiveness in TSs. TSs have many names and are referred to as expositions, exhibitions, trade fairs, scientific or technical conferences, and conventions (Gottlieb, 2014). Despite the different name, the fundamental attributes of the activity concludes the same-it is a major industry marketing event (Herbig et al, 1997).…”