Let's face facts: If show organizers didn't have a reputation for exaggerating their attendance figures, the question of whether trade shows should be audited would be moot. But whether the practice is prevalent today or a relic of the past, it has marred the industry's reputation and created an atmosphere of doubt. When prospective exhibitors see unsubstantiated claims about the number of qualified buyers at a show, they have to ask, "So what?"
"Those of us who've done shows for a while get to know which show producers deliver what they promise," says Brenda Tildon, CME, Regional Exhibit Manager for Bell Atlantic, Philadelphia, and a member of the International Exhibitors Association (IEA) Board of Directors. "My number one interest in coming to a show is generating qualified sales leads. If someone says they had 20,000 people at their last show, I say, 'So what? Tell me something else -- what was the buying power of those people? Who makes the purchasing decisions? How long before they buy?'"
Exhibiting in about 60 shows a year to market Bell Atlantic's network services, Tildon passes what she's learned on to students in the exhibit marketing program at Drexel University. Although attendance figures aren't the overriding criteria for deciding where to allocate her marketing dollars, they are a starting point. "When I look at the figures, I ask, 'What did they pad that with? Did they open up the vocational school up the street and let students in? Or did people take the afternoon off work to come?'" Attendance claims that aren't backed by credible research "aren't worth the paper they're written on," she says.
Old debate, new age
Advertisers have long questioned the validity of claims about the potential audience for their messages. From the rise of outdoor advertising in the 1950s to the proliferation of World Wide Web sites in the '90s, inflated traffic estimates have been suspect. Bill Mee, Research Fellow for Exhibit Surveys and President Emeritus of the Trade Show Bureau (TSB, now the Center for Exhibition Industry Research), recalls the debate that raged between free and paid circulation publications, giving rise to the BPA International Audit Report.
About the same time, he says, "the Association of National Advertisers and the American Association of Advertising Agencies made a major press to get some sort of audit for trade shows and exhibits. Advertisers had the feeling that they needed specific data. This thing has been simmering since the early 1950s."
Both BPA and the Audit Bureau of Circulations (ABC) investigated ways to audit trade shows in the 1960s. From 1966 to 1968, ABC audited 38 shows through its not-for-profit subsidiary, the Audit Bureau of Marketing Services. And in the early 1970s, BPA opened the Exhibition Audit Division, but suspended the program after auditing only 35 exhibitions. Then in 1983, TSB formed the Exposition Validation Council (EVC), which was endorsed by IEA and the National Association of Exposition Managers (now the International Association for Exposition Management, IAEM).
"The Exhibition Validation Council Report was just a form to follow, based on good-faith reporting by the show organizer," Mee says. Few organizers actually used the report and though it, too, went by the wayside, TSB continued to document the selling power of shows. "We were interested in providing research that proved the value and importance of the trade show as a marketing medium. But show organizers were reluctant to do their own research to backup our studies."
Also in the early 1980s, a major shift in the allocation of marketing budget dollars spurred the growth of the trade show industry. Mee explains: "The shift came from the historical 30 percent of budget that went into direct response media and 70 percent that went to measured (commissionable) media. Now 70 percent of the budget marketing dollars were being spent on direct response, and 30 percent were going into measured media. When that happened, the number of trade shows went from 4,000 to about 9,000 -- that includes the 84 percent of trade shows that have 200 booths or less. And the size of shows increased, too."
With the tremendous shift of marketing dollars into the industry, show organizers grew complacent. The need for research, much less formal audits, seemed remote. But business press publishers, who suffered losses in ad page revenues, launched "media warfare," and used the lack of verified attendance data as a key weapon in their attack on trade shows.
"Because show organizers have not provided commissions on the sale of space, ad agencies do not champion the cause of shows," Mee says. "Every presentation an ad agency makes for a media program is backed by research that supports how their program is going to meet the customer's needs." Without comparable data -- audience demographics and buying power -- trade shows suffer in the comparison. "By ignoring the research practices and procedures of their media competition, trade shows are allowing themselves to be outflanked."
Proponents forge ahead
In the 1990s, corporate downsizing and the corresponding reductions in marketing budgets have intensified the competition for budget dollars, leading to a resurgence in interest in trade show audits. In 1992, the Society for Independent Show Organizers (SISO) initiated a test program. "The trade show business is competing for marketing dollars with other forms of media, and these other forms of media are able to provide the buyers of their services with independent audit verification," says David Cheifetz, President of Norwalk, CT-based DSC Group LLC, and Past-chair of SISO. He challenges anyone to compare a page in SRDS, the media and marketing bible, to the Tradeshow Week Data Book. "See how much easier it is to compare magazines and their circulations than it is to compare trade shows. Which one enables you to make a decision?"
To test the feasibility of compiling comparable data for trade shows, ABC audited five events over a four-month period in 1993: International Gaming Business Exposition, The Imprinted Sportswear Show, Forest Industries Wood Technology Clinic & Show, Photo West and Kitchen/Bath Industry Show. "People who had their shows audited were happy with the results," Cheifetz says. "But they couldn't translate the results into increased exhibitor support. The exhibitors didn't seem impressed that the shows had been audited."
Despite the lukewarm response, several organizers have opted to continue auditing their shows. After three years, ABC now audits 30 to 35 shows produced by a dozen independent show organizers. Buoyed by their success with the test program, the not-for-profit association, which is headquartered in Schaumburg, IL, has launched a wholly owned subsidiary, the Audit Bureau of Verification Services Inc. (ABVS), to verify the claims of new and non-traditional advertiser-supported media, including attendance and demographics for trade shows.
"Our role is to verify information advertising buyers need to facilitate the sales process," says John Payne, ABC's Senior Vice President, Strategic Planning. "In an era of increasing accountability, you've got to be able to prove your information is what you claim it is."
A vocal advocate for trade show audits, Galen Poss, CEM, Vice President for the Dallas division of Miller Freeman Inc. (MFI), helped shape the ABC program and is currently responsible for eight audited events. He says the stakes for the industry are high. "If a new exhibitor goes with a show that made false claims about their attendance figures, they may have a bad experience. They won't go back to that show and may not go back to trade shows. We've lost them as a prospect for the industry," he says. By providing accurate attendance data, verified by an independent audit, show organizers can help exhibitors make informed choices. "In the end, what we need is for all of our exhibitors to have successful shows."
A white paper prepared in 1994 by a joint task force of IAEM and SISO concludes that a reasonably priced, standardized and voluntary audit program will benefit exhibitors, show organizers and attendees. "There's nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come," says Jack Withiam Jr., CEM, Executive Vice President and General Counsel for George Little Management and President of IAEM Services Inc. "We're trying to make the trade show industry as professional as possible. You want to validate your numbers and give credibility to trade shows."
IAEM Services is currently working with ABC to develop a standardized audit format that could be adopted by any show organizer. "We've been able to help them understand what we as show organizers need. They've been working with Miller Freeman, and they had a lot of questions. Over the past year, we've been talking about what we want, and what type of information needs to come out to support their marketing claims," Withiam says. "We've been reporting that information for years. What this will do is validate it."
Representing more than 1,400 exhibit managers, IEA also endorses the concept of trade show audits. A 1994 survey of 320 randomly selected IEA members revealed that 66 percent say trade show audits would help them select exhibitions to participate in, and 55 percent say audits would help match their target audience with show attendees. Though a minority, 43 percent say show audits will make show management feel more accountable to their customers, the exhibitors.
Bell Atlantic's Tildon says she'd be willing to pay more to exhibit in a show that provides third-party audit results. And though audits may not be mandatory, she says, "I could see refusing to do a show if they don't provide the information I need when I ask for it." But she's also concerned about show management's attitude toward exhibitors. Tildon explains: "Attendance verification would be meaningful, but it's not all-important. I look at the overall delivery of the show producer - how they deal with me as a client."
Opponents are adamant
The fact that an exhibitor's decision may ultimately rest on something as intangible as "attitude" fuels the argument against trade show audits. "We've hung ourselves by using attendance numbers as a yardstick for measuring success," says Diane Stone, Show Director at Fairfield, CT-based Expocon Management Associates Inc. and Chair of IAEM's Council of Independent Show Organizers. "If you continue to be dogged by the numbers, then what are you going to do when the numbers are flat, but everyone thinks it's the best show they've ever been to?"
Stone refuses to talk numbers before a show and, instead, favors a more esoteric yardstick. "I'm interested in how people on both sides of the aisle feel about the viability of that event, and that's a very visceral thing," she says. In the hip lingo of the '60s, her exhibit sales brochure for the East Coast Video Show quotes the editor of a leading industry publication: "Is this show a happening, or what?"
The issue is one of quality versus quantity. Attendance verification does not capture the human element that is unique to trade shows as a marketing medium. In fact, a 1994 IAEM survey of advertising agencies found that when agencies do advise their clients to participate in trade shows, audience quality is the top consideration. The question is, how should show organizers measure that quality?
"If you just measure attendance, you're measuring the wrong thing," says Bruce Hughes, Vice President of Business Development for Toronto-based Southex Exhibitions and a member of the Canadian Association of Exposition Managers Board of Directors. "The real issue is buying power. We measure how much money is spent at the show, and how much is spent following the show." For example, the exhibitor promotion piece for Southex's Premium and Incentive Show states: "$212 million worth of purchases were made as a result of the show last year. Are you going to get your share of that this year?"
Hughes backs his claims with field research performed by Angus Reid, a leading political polling organization in Canada. Studies are done for every new and acquired show he produces and once every three years for ongoing shows. Customized research measures purchase intent for shows with vastly different buying cycles - such as their gift shows, where 100 percent of attendees come to buy at the show, and their National Petroleum Show, where the sale of billion-dollar refineries won't be concluded for two years or more.
And though Southex tracks attendance using computerized registration systems, they do not release their numbers. A recent gift show illustrates why: An industry slump forced store owners to come alone, rather than bringing their staff along. "Our attendance numbers dropped significantly, but the buying was virtually unchanged," Hughes says. "The owner was there to do serious buying, without the distraction of partying with staff. What would an attendance audit have told us about that show?"
Though he himself favors audits, DSC Group's Cheifetz articulates well the other compelling arguments against audits. "Show managers resist the idea on a lot of levels. For one, you're giving your competitors an opportunity to look at your information, when you don't have a similar opportunity to look at theirs. It's an opportunity to sell against you. Theoretically, if I have audited results, the exhibitor can base a decision on my results knowing they are credible. But if you take my competitor's results, you're basing your decision on the reputation of the show producer. If my show has 10,000 attendees and the competitor has 20,000, but mine is audited and theirs isn't, who do you believe? It's a vicious circle."
Another reason cited by his peers: A trade show audit patterned after circulation audits invites an unfair comparison of costs per thousand - since costs aren't weighted for the value of face-to-face exposure at shows. Do people compare apples to oranges? "They're much smarter than that," says Cheifetz.
Then there's the question of cost. For an average-size three-day show - one with about 12,000 attendees - an audit can cost $4,000-$6,000, according to ABC's Payne. Though exhibitors may be willing to absorb the added expense, show organizers question whether they'll see a measurable return on the investment. Even MFI's Poss, who's audited his shows since 1993, says "it would be difficult to quantify" the number of exhibitors he's won over with published audit results.
The last, but not least, significant argument against trade show audits is the one no one really wants to talk about: If attendance figures have been "exaggerated" in the past, how do you come clean? "If you're the first one who 'fesses up and produces real numbers, it becomes difficult to go up against the competition," says Poss.
An industry in transition
The audit debate is indicative of an industry in search of a tangible solution to an intangible problem: one of validity, credibility and accountability. The party atmosphere of a bygone era has left a bitter aftertaste. No matter how mightily show organizers strive to establish a reputation for professionalism and quality, doubt lingers on in the minds of their prospective customers. Submitting to an audit, and making the results public, is one way to dispel that doubt.
If it occurs, the transition to standardized audit reporting will be slow and arduous. For some, it will take time to close the gap between perception and reality: internal reviews will verify attendance, and when the claims closely match the actual numbers, the audit reports will be made public. "I know for a fact there are several shows that wanted to get audited, but they would not publish the results," says Poss. "Over a three-year period, they let the gap between reality and the results close."
Ultimately, it will be the exhibiting community that pressures show organizers to substantiate their attendance claims. "The bottom line is, our customers to date have not said to us, 'We're only going to exhibit at audited shows,'" says DSC Group's Cheifetz. "If the show producer feels auditing his events will help, he'll do it. And if he doesn't, he won't. It apparently can't be forced on them." Committed to auditing the three events that he's launched, he adds, "I think any forward-thinking show producer should participate on a voluntary basis."
Whether your show could benefit from a standardized audit program depends largely on the type of show you produce. If there is any consensus, it is that independent show organizers stand to gain the most by demonstrating their willingness to be "accountable" for their numbers. Association trade shows, backed by the credibility of a professional association, may gain the least.
Public shows, which by all accounts have the worst reputation for exaggerating their numbers, will be the last converts - though the first consumer show has already undergone a rigorous audit in Great Britain. Which raises the question of international events: pressured by their European counterparts, who have for years used sophisticated audit and reporting procedures, U.S.- and Canada-based show producers may have to take the plunge to remain competitive in the global market.
Independent shows
The Audit Bureau of Circulations (ABC) audits about 20 Miller Freeman Inc. (MFI) events. Galen Poss, CEM, Vice President of MFI's Dallas division, says it helps sell the first-time exhibitors who represent 20-25 percent of their customers. "You have a significant proportion of your buyers making decisions without having experienced your product," he says. "We see the audits as giving us an advantage in the sales process. We encourage our exhibitors to compare our numbers when they're looking at our competitors."
To his knowledge, none of the competitors for his eight shows audit their events. "There have been instances when we've had our customers ask the other shows for their numbers," Poss says. "If they're reluctant to give numbers, that's the starting point to gain market share." Both new and established events can benefit. "If it's an up-and-coming show, they'll use it as a chisel to chip away at their competitor's base. We also have shows that have high market share, and in that case the audit works well to keep people from trying to 'niche' you. We can demonstrate how many people in that niche we're really getting."
For the dominant show with little or no competition, an audit makes less sense. MFI audits less than one fifth of all its events. And at George Little Management, where Executive Vice President and General Counsel Jack Withiam Jr., CEM, advocates the concept, no shows are currently audited. "We will look at our events to see which ones are competitive with others," he says. "Are we going to audit all of our shows? Probably not. We have a show where there's a waiting list - the show speaks for itself."
Association shows
Competition is the key. With more than 2,000 exhibitors and 16,500 attendees, the National Housewares Manufacturers Association (NHMA) uses a registration bureau to track attendance at the International Housewares Show. "Our show is sold out," says Deborah Teschke, Manager, Media Relations/Communications. "We are the show for housewares." She says NHMA won't be auditing its event any time soon.
Even for smaller association shows, audits may not be useful. Gary Shaw, CMP, Director of Meetings for Bostrom Corp., a Chicago-based association management company, says audits aren't called for in a highly vertical show. "If you're qualified to belong to the association, then those that attend are skewed to that profile," he says. With the credibility of the association behind them, these shows have an advantage, even when they're up against for-profit events. "It costs me a heck of a lot more money to go to an association event than to put a stamp on a post card and go to a for-profit trade show. The perception is, they are more serious buyers."
Association shows that do track demographics don't see the need for a stamp of approval from an audit. The American Heart Association (AHA) budgets $20,000- $25,000 a year for sophisticated market research plus another $15,000 for consulting services all related to its 150,000-net-square-foot trade show. Smart-card registration technology also helps track its 33,400 attendees.
"If I were a consumer publication, I wouldn't have it any other way but to have an audit," says Paula Nourse-Ragland, AHA's Marketing Manager. "But AHA publishes six journals that are not audited, and I doubt that we would ever audit our trade show. We're non-profit, and we're not a commercial entity."
Public Shows
Everyone agrees that consumer shows are an entirely different animal. Surrounded for years by a P.T. Barnum atmosphere, in which outrageous attendance claims were the norm, public show producers face the greatest challenge to remake their reputations. "There are two schools of thought," says George Gonsalves, President of Wethersfield, CT-based North East Promotions Inc. and President of the National Association of Consumer Shows. "If you need to publish numbers and they're true and good, you should publish them. The other side is: who cares about the numbers. If you have a good show, people will come."
His exhibitors measure their success based on the business that they derive from the event. By surveying exhibitors at the 10 public shows he produces, Gonsalves learns what he needs to know. "If we show sales, we can justify the expense of exhibiting," he says. "From our mom-and-pop businesses to the largest corporations that are involved in our shows, they have to substantiate their investment."
Tickets collected at the door -- including free passes and coupons -- may be from serious buyers, price shoppers or families on an outing. Gonsalves entices attendees to fill out questionnaires that will enter them in sweepstakes, tallies the responses in his off season and uses the results to shape his marketing plans.
London-based P&O Events overcame a logistical nightmare when it became the first European show organizer to audit a consumer event. The Audit Bureau of Circulation (not related to the U.S.-based ABC) conducted a trial audit for the 1995 London Motor Show, a 10-day event with more than 425,000 attendees.
"ABC had a lot to learn," says Mark Saunders, Show Director. "They didn't know the ticket pricing structure and how tickets were distributed. Then there was the physical issue of counting the tickets collected. We had to number all the tickets issued for the show, then ABC checked their count against our bank receipts to verify the number present." After a successful trial, P&O Events has decided to audit all 25 shows, including both business-to-business and consumer shows, in 1996.
International events
The vast majority of European show organizers already audit their trade fairs, due in part to membership requirements for organizations such as the London-based Association of Exhibition Organizers, Paris-based Union des Foires Internationales and Berlin-based Society for Voluntary Control of Fair and Exhibition Statistics. What is routinely missing from their verified attendance figures, however, is the demographic data that qualifies their audience. Government regulations restrict the types of personal data that can be collected and published. Nonetheless, show producers who want to compete with their European counterparts may be forced to have attendance claims validated.
"There will be pressure from the exhibiting community to have an audit," says MFI's Poss, who sees it as a tremendous opportunity. "If all MFI shows were audited and a portfolio of those shows was distributed around the world, that would be a significant statement in the global market."
