Exhibitor: Participant survey results

The exhibitor survey was mailed to 348 companies. As of September 25, 77 exhibitors had completed and returned a survey, for a response rate of 22%. A decent response.

Overall Satisfaction
For the most part, ICAST exhibitors were pleased with the 2003 Show.
Nearly 30% of respondents indicate they were “Very Satisfied” with the show and 58% indicated they were “Satisfied” for an overall satisfaction level of 88%.

Attendance
Exhibitors were also generally satisfied with show attendance. 15% of respondents indicate they were “Very Satisfied” with the number of buyers and 51% indicated they were “Satisfied” for an overall satisfaction level 66%.

Satisfaction with the quality of the buyers was even higher. Nearly 23% of respondents indicate they were “Very Satisfied” with the quality of buyers and 65% indicated they were “Satisfied” for an overall satisfaction level of 88%.

Reasons For Exhibiting
Introducing new products was the number one reason indicated for attending the show, with 91% of exhibitors indicating this was very important or important. 93% of respondents indicated the show delivered well or extremely well in this area.

Gaining new retailers was rated as important by 90% of exhibitor respondents. However, only 47% indicated that the show delivered well in this area and only 4% indicated it delivered extremely well. This would appear to be an area needing attention.

It is gratifying to note that 88% of respondents indicated that supporting ASA was an important reason for attending the show. While this is very rarely reason enough for a manufacturer to attend a trade show it nonetheless shows strong affinity for the association.

Meeting with the media was indicated as important or very important by 70% of exhibitors and 79% indicated the show delivered well or extremely well in this area. There were a significant number of comments regarding media efforts to sell advertising to exhibitors. This is addressed in the Recommendations section.

Show Specials
Nearly two-thirds of respondents indicated they offered show specials but only 55% indicated these were effective in helping achieve their show objectives. Comments regarding show specials are discussed further in the Recommendations section.

Buyer Raffle Program
Fewer than 16% of responding exhibitors indicated that they participated in the buyer raffle program. Nearly 20% indicated they were not aware of the program. We do not know enough about this program to make a recommendation but discussion and perhaps modification in the program would seem to be indicated.

Off-setting Attendee Costs
Only 27% of exhibitors thought attendees could totally or partially offset the expenses of attending ICAST by taking advantage of show specials. However, 51% did indicate that they weren’t sure. We believe a marketing opportunity exists here.

New-Product Center & Reception
Slightly more than half (55%) of exhibitors indicated that they had a product in the New Product Center. Of these, less than half felt the effectiveness was good (37%) or excellent (12%).

Only 38% of responding exhibitors indicated that they attended the New Product Center Reception. Of those who did not attend, most indicated scheduling conflicts. However, only 41% rated the value and effectiveness of the New Product Center Reception as excellent (12%) or good (29%). Nearly one-third indicated they weren’t sure of the value. Along these lines, there were a significant number of comments questioning the judging for New Product Awards. We do not know enough to comment if there is a real problem here or simply a lot of very verbal bad losers.

Industry Breakfast
While only 21% of respondents indicated that they attended the Industry Breakfast, our experience suggests that this represents decent interest in the event.

Of those who did attend 71% rated the program as good (47%) or excellent (24%). There were a significant number of comments suggesting a “more themed” Keynote Speaker. It is our view that your Industry Breakfast is a solid, professional, event that can be further refined and capitalized upon.

MAATS
Fewer than 12% of exhibitors indicated that the co-located MAATS Show enhanced their ICAST experience. More than half indicated it did not and 35% indicated they were not sure. These responses seem consistent with an overall lack of awareness or understanding of the relationship/partnership between MAATS and ICAST.

Nearly 60% of respondents indicated they did not know what their reaction would be if the shows were co-located again. 11% thought it would be very favorable and 21% indicated it would be somewhat favorable. In our view, if the shows are co-located, a better job MIGHT be done of making all ICAST attendees aware of when they can attend MAATS.

Media Activity
The presence of media attempting to sell advertising to exhibitors is an issue at many trade shows and, unfortunately, ICAST does not appear to be an exception. While 29% of responding exhibitors indicated that the media presence was a significant reason for exhibiting at ICAST, 34% indicated the media value was not significant and 25% indicated the media was a distraction.

Along these lines, 26% of respondents indicated that media solicitations were a major concern and 45% indicated they were somewhat of a concern. For these reasons we have recommended that a committee of media attendees be named to develop media guidelines in cooperation with ICAST staff.

More Retailer Attendees
More than 80% of responding exhibitors strongly agree (52%) or agree (31%) or that ICAST would benefit by having more independent retailers at the show. 10% are undecided and less than 2% strongly disagree.

Along similar lines, 77% agree (40%) or strongly agree (37%) that larger independent retailers have sufficient staff to allow participation in the show and that they should be targeted as attendees at ICAST 2004. This is further discussed in the Recommendations section.

Participation by Non-Members
Participation by non-members in association-owned trade shows is an ongoing source of debate and, again, ICAST is no exception. While 62% of responding exhibitors agree that non-members of ASA should be allowed to attend the show if they agree not to sell on the show floor, 22% do not agree and 15% are undecided.

On a related question, 40% of respondents agree that non-members should be allowed to exhibit if they pay a higher fee, 47% disagree, of which 26% strongly disagree. It is our view that this is a very important issue for ASA to resolve and that the question should be re-surveyed offering more detail. This is discussed further in the Recommendations section.

First-Time Exhibitors
Enhancing the trade show experience for first-time exhibitors is a key element of growing a trade show. How far to go in assisting the first-time exhibitor is the question. Current exhibitors were not in agreement that first-time exhibitors should be given priority high visibility space in ICAST. 44% of respondents did not agree as opposed to 35% who did agree. 22% were undecided. One respondent indicated he would no longer exhibit if such priority were offered to first-time exhibitors. Other opportunities to enhance the ICAST experience for first-time exhibitors should be pursued.

Venue
It is clear that Las Vegas is a popular trade show venue and 62% of responding ICAST exhibitors feel that all future ICAST shows should be scheduled for Las Vegas. 28% disagree and 10% were undecided. On the option of holding most shows in Las Vegas but moving to an alternate venue every few years, 31% agreed while 41% disagreed and 28% were undecided. While a decision based on pure numbers would suggest holding every show in Vegas; other shows that have adopted such a policy often experience a decline in attendance down the road. For this reason, in consideration of those who would like to see an occasional change in venue and in recognition of the East Coast market, we recommend a cycle of two shows in Las Vegas and one in Orlando. We strongly recommend, however, a re-survey of exhibitors and a broad sampling of Las Vegas and Orlando attendees seeking reaction to that specific proposal.

Exhibitor Comments
In our view, there were sufficient exhibitor comments to merit attention in the following areas:

• Air-Conditioning During Set-Up/Tear-Down
  Exhibit personnel have always commented on the lack of heat or air-conditioning during set-up when freight doors must remain open. However, in Las Vegas in July those comments would appear to have an air of legitimacy. We recommend that, at least, ASA explore options and costs associated with providing some level of cooling during set-up. We expect the cost to be in the range of $10,000-$12,000.

• POV Assistance
  Smaller exhibitors, many of which are first-time exhibitors, often transport their exhibit materials to the show in their personal vehicles (POVS). These exhibitors are often confused and quite aggravated when told they can not carry or wheel their exhibit materials to their booths but must instead hire a union contractor at a substantial minimal hourly rate. We believe there is an opportunity to turn this aggravation into a customer-relations homerun.

• Show Hours
  Exhibitor comments regarding show hours ranged from a suggested close at 4:00 pm to a slightly earlier close at 5:30. We suggest experimenting with a 5:30 close, based, in part, on our success in implementing a 5:30 close at the SHOT SHOW several years ago.